Amrit Lal Paw Vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Others

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

ACQA->ACQUITTAL APPEAL [ APPEAL U/S 378 ], .4880 of 2004 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH :HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No.4880 of 2004
PETITIONER : Amrit Lal Paw
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board
& Others
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances:
Shri Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri AS Gaharwar and Shri Mazid Ali, Advocate for
respondent No.1,3 & 4.
Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri NK Vyas, Assistant Solicitor General for Union of
India/respondent No.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
(Passed on 26.02.2015)
1. Petitioner's father Deharu Ram died in harness on
09.10.1998 while working on the post of Assistant Meter
Reader with the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board
(for short, MPEB) posted at Bilaspur. The petitioner made an
application for compassionate appointment which remain
pending consideration, meanwhile, new State of Chhattisgarh
came to be carved out w.e.f. 01.11.2000 and Chhattisgarh
2
State Electricity Board (for short CSEB) came to be
constituted w.e.f. 15.11.2000. Upon constitution of new
Electricity Board in Chhattisgarh, the MPEB sent back the
petitioner's application for compassionate appointment to
newly constituted board/respondent No.1. The said
respondent No.1 did not consider the petitioner's application
for such an appointment leading to filing of this writ petition
commanding the respondent No.1 to consider the case of
petitioner as per existing policy in force when the petitioner's
father died.
2. The respondent No.1 has filed its counter affidavit stating
inter alia that Govt. of Chhattisgarh/Board has taken a policy
decision that preference will be given to those dependent
members whose bread earner died on or after 15.11.2000,
and since the petitioner's father died on 09.10.1998 i.e. prior
to 15.11.2000, therefore, he is not entitled for compassionate
appointment.
3. Respondent-MPEB has also filed its return stating that due to
formation of new State of Chhattisgarh as well as CSEB, the
petitioner's case has been sent to the respondent
No.1/Board, and therefore, it is the Chhattisgarh State
Electricity Board (for short, CSEB) i.e. successor of MPEB
3
who has to consider and decide the petitioner's application
for compassionate appointment in accordance with law.
4. Shri Dhani Ram Patel, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that this court passed an order on
06.07.2006 in WP No. 1736 of 2004 (Sanjay Yadav v. State
of Chhattisgarh) and directed for consideration of application
for compassionate appointment of similarly situated person in
accordance with policy of 1997 as prevalent, against which
respondent No.1/CSEB had filed SLP(C) No.19197 of 2006
(Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Sanjay Yadav &
Others) which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on
26.08.2014 directing the respondent No.1-CSEB to consider
the case of the dependents of the deceased within three
months, the petitioner's case being similar to that of Sanjay
Yadav (Supra) duly affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C)
filed by the respondent No.1-CSEB, an appropriate writ(s) be
issued for consideration of the petitioner's case for
compassionate appointment in accordance with the policy of
1997 on the principle of parity.
5. Shri AS Gaharwar, learned counsel appearing for
respondent-CSEB would submit that petitioner is not entitled
to claim compassionate appointment as per policy of CSEB
4
as petitioner's father died prior to 15.11.2000 and as such
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for
respondent-MPEB would submit that it is respondent
No.1/CSEB who has to decide the petitioner's case for
compassionate appointment as his case has been sent to the
respondent No.1/CSEB after formation of new State and
constitution of new Board/CSEB and it is the responsibility of
respondent No.1-CSEB to decide the application for
compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner in
accordance with law.
7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents appended thereto with utmost
circumspection.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be proper to notice order
dated 06.07.2006 passed by this court in WP No. 1736 of
2004, in which the death of workman working with erstwhile
MPEB and posted in territorial area of Chhattisgarh occurred
on 22.12.1998, this court directed the respondent No.1/CSEB
to consider that petitioner's case for compassionate
appointment in accordance with existing policy of 1997.
Relevant paragraph of said order states as under :
5
“It is admitted position that the petitioner's father
died on 22.12.1998 while he was working as
Lineman and the petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment on 17.04.1999.
Therefore, the case of the petitioner ought to
have been considered in the light of existing
circular dated 30.01.1997. The ground taken by
the CSEB is that it came into existence on
15.11.2000 after reorganization of the State and
that cut of date has been taken for
consideration of compassionate appointment .
But this stand of CSEB is not based on sound
reasonings for the reasons that in the meeting
dated 20th March, 2003 representatives of both
the States agreed before the Secretary (Power)
that the division of employees of MPEB shall be
on the lines followed by DOPT for allocation of
posts and employees of the State Government
of erstwhile Madhya Pradesh for making
allocation of posts and persons to the successor
Electricity Board of MPEB on the principle that
posts related to territorial jurisdiction of a
successor State may be allotted to respective
states and similarly employees belonging to
such sub-State territorial cadres being
allocated to the concerned State. As the
petitioner's father was working in the territorial
jurisdiction of the newly created CSEB,
therefore, the above policy, even though CSEB
was created on 15.11.2000, it is the
responsibility of CSEB to consider the case of
appointment of those employees who died prior
to 15.11.2000 subject to their working and
residence under the territorial jurisdiction of
CSEB. The petitioner's case satisfied the above
condition and the application of the petitioner is
said to be pending at Raipur, as per the list
signed by MPEB.”
9. Against that order dated 06.07.2006, SLP (C) No. 19197 of
2006 (Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Sanjay Yadav &
Others) was filed by the respondent No.1-CSEB which came
6
to be dismissed by their Lordships of Supreme Court by
order dated 26.08.2014 by observing as under:
“Special leave petitions are dismissed. However,
the petitioners may consider the application of
the respondents for appointment on
compassionate ground within a period of three
months from today.”
10. Thus, the order passed by this court directing the respondent
No.1/CSEB to consider the case of petitioner therein for
compassionate appointment as per policy of 1997 has
attained finality upon dismissal of Special Leave Petition by
the Supreme Court.
11. The law is also well settled in this regard. In the matter of
Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others1, their
Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that application for
compassionate appointment is required to be considered in
the terms of rules, which were in existence at the time of
death of concerned Government Servant by observing as
under:-
“5. The appellant herein had sought for
appointment on compassionate grounds at a
point of time when the 2003 Rules were not in
existence. His case, therefore, was required to
be considered in terms of the Rules which were in
existence in the year 2001.”
12. Turning back to the facts of the case, it would appear that
petitioner’s father working in erstwhile MPEB Bilaspur now
1 (2006) 12 SCC 44
7
forming part of Chhattisgarh died on 09.10.1998 and after the
formation of CSEB on 15.11.2000, his application was
sent/transferred by MPEB to respondent No.1 for
consideration. Thus, the case of the petitioner is identical
with Sanjay Yadav (supra) which has been decided by this
court on 06.07.2006 and against which SLP(C) filed by the
respondent No.1/Board has already been dismissed and it
has been clearly held by this court that dependent of
deceased employee (i.e. Sanjay Yadav’s case) are entitled to
be considered in the light of existing policy of 1997
(30.01.1997). As the petitioner’s father while working with
MPEB/respondent No.2 and in the territorial jurisdiction of
newly created CSEB prior to its constitution i.e. 15.11.2000
died in harness on 09.10.1998, the present petitioner is also
entitled to be considered for his compassionate appointment
in accordance with policy of 1997 on the principle of parity
with Sanjay Yadav’s case (supra). The principle of parity is
the equal treatment of equals in equal circumstances. [Kindly
see State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas2]
13. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the
petition is allowed. The respondent No.1/its successor
company is directed to consider the case of petitioner for his
appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with
2 (1976) 2 SCC 310
8
policy of 1997 relating to compassionate appointment subject
to fulfillment of educational qualification/eligibility criteria. No
order as to cost(s).
Judge
inder
9
HEAD NOTE
Application for compassionate appointment to be considered
on the basis of policy prevalent on the date of death of Board
Servant.
eaMy lsod dh e`R;q fnukad ij fo|eku uhfr ds vuqlkj vuqdEik
fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
(Indrajeet Sahu)
Private Secretary to
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal