Chattisgarh High CourtSmt. Pratyaksha Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 December, 2021Author:Sanjay K. AgrawalBench:Sanjay K. Agrawal1\n\n                                                                                 NAFR\n                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n                    Writ Petition (S) No.81 of 2016\n\n     Smt.Pratyaksha Sahu, D/o Late Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Sahu,\n     aged about 35 years, R/o Village and Post Silyari, Tehsil\n     Raipur, District­Raipur (CG)\n\n                                                               ­­­­ Petitioner\n\n                                     Versus\n\n  1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, School\n     Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District­\n     Raipur (CG)\n\n  2. District Education Officer, Raipur, District­Raipur (CG)\n\n                                                                  ­­­­ RespondentFor Petitioner                 : Ms Prakritee Jain, Advocate on behalf\n                                 of Mr.Prateek Jain, Advocate\nFor Respondents                : Mr.Ravi Bhagat, Dy.G.A.\n\n              Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal\n                          Order on Board\n\n15/12/20211. The petitioner herein calls in question the impugned order\n\n    dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure P­1) by which her application\n\n    for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected\n\n    by    respondent    No.2    on    the     ground    that   she    is   married\n\n    daughter of deceased government servant and therefore, in\n\n    view     of    policy   prevalent,         she     is   not    entitled       for\n\n    privilege of compassionate appointment.2. Ms   Prakritee     Jain,    learned       counsel      appearing      for    the\n\n    petitioner, would submit that in view of law declared by\n\n    this Court in WPS No.296/2014 (Smt.Sarojni Bhoi v. State\n\n    of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 30.11.2015, the\n\n    petitioner would be entitled for compassionate appointment\n\n    though she is married daughter.                  Therefore, the impugned2order dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure P­1) is liable to be set\n\n  aside.3. On   the      other       hand,     Mr.Ravi       Bhagat,     learned    Deputy\n\n  Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State,\n\n  would    submit        that    the    impugned       order     was    passed    on\n\n  10.8.2010       and    the    present       writ    petition    was    filed    on\n\n  6.1.2016    and       as   such,     this    writ    petition    suffers       from\n\n  delay    and    laches       and   therefore,       the   petitioner     is    not\n\n  entitled for benefit of compassionate appointment. Even\n\n  otherwise, the petitioner has survived for a fairly long\n\n  time and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by\n\n  directing for consideration of the petitioner's case for\n\n  grant of compassionate appointment.4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,\n\n  considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and\n\n  also went through the records with utmost circumspection.5. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 10.8.2010 and\n\n  the present writ petition was filed on 6.1.2016 i.e. after\n\n  five years. Admittedly, no period of limitation has been\n\n  prescribed for filing the writ petition against the order\n\n  passed by the executive authority, but it must be filed\n\n  within a reasonable period i.e. within a period of three\n\n  years, but there is two more years delay in filing the\n\n  application, which the learned counsel for the petitioner\n\n  would respond that since the law whether married daughter\n\n  is entitled for compassionate appointment was unclear and\n\n  it was made clear by the pronouncement of this Court on330.11.2015   inSmt.Sarojni    Bhoi(supra),     therefore,     the\n\n  petitioner after waiting for law to be declared and as and\n\n  when the law was declared on 30.11.2015, she immediately\n\n  filed this writ petition on 6.1.2016, which cannot be held\n\n  to be barred by limitation. The argument appears to be\n\n  reasonable. Even otherwise, matrimonial dispute is also\n\n  pending   consideration   between       the    petitioner     and   her\n\n  husband, which was finally culminated into the order of\n\n  separation dated 5.1.2018, as such, it cannot be held that\n\n  writ petition suffers from delay and laches. Delay, if\n\n  any, has to be condoned. Accordingly, the writ petition is\n\n  held to not suffering from delay and laches.6. The   question   for   consideration         is,   whether    married\n\n  daughter is entitled for compassionate appointment.7. The question so posed is no longer res­intregra and it\n\n  stands concluded by decision of this Court inSmt.Sarojni\n\n  Bhoi(supra), in which this Court held as under:­\n\n     "27. In above­stated judgment with reference to\n     Constitutional provisions, it has clearly been held\n     by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that no\n     discrimination can be made in public employment on\n     gender basis asArticle 16(2)of the Constitution of\n     India clearly provides that no citizen shall on the\n     ground of sex be ineligible or discriminated against\n     in respect of any employment or office under the\n     State. In the case in hand, the married son is\n     entitled for compassionate appointment on account of\n     death of his father or mother as the case may be but\n     that is not so with the unmarried daughter as such\n     disqualification is based on sex. Thus, it is a\n     clear case of discrimination on the basis of sex\n     which   is  in   teeth  of   Constitutional  mandate\n     guaranteed underArticle 16(2)of the Constitution\n     of India.28. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis, it emanates\n     that institution of marriage is an important and\n     basic civil right of man and woman and marriage by4itself is not a disqualification and impugned policy\n              of the State Government barring and prohibiting the\n              consideration of the   married daughter from seeking\n              compassionate appointment merely on the ground of\n              marriage is plainly arbitrary and violative of\n              constitutional guarantee envisaged inArticle 14, 15and16(2)of the Constitution of India being\n              unconstitutional.29. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid\n              discussion,    writ    petition    is   allowed    and\n              consequently Clause 3(1)(c) of policy relating to\n              compassionate   appointment   dated   10/06/2003   and\n              Clause 5(c) of policy dated 14/06/2013           being\n              violative and discriminatory to the extent of\n              excluding married daughter for consideration from\n              compassionate appointment are hereby declared void\n              and inoperative and consequently the impugned order\n              (Annexure­P/3) rejecting the petitioner's case for\n              compassionate    appointment     is    quashed.    The\n              respondents/State is directed to reconsider the\n              claim   of   petitioner   for   being   appointed   on\n              compassionate ground afresh in accordance with law\n              keeping in view that her father died on 06/1/2011\n              and her application was rejected on 28/09/2011,\n              preferably within a period of forty five days from\n              the receipt of certified copy of order. No order as\n              to cost(s)."8. In    that    view   of   the   matter,    the    impugned     order     dated\n\n        10.8.2010       (Annexure    P­1)       passed    by   respondent      No.2   is\n\n        hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent\n\n        No.2 for consideration of the petitioner's application for\n\n        compassionate         appointment       afresh    in   light    of    decision\n\n        rendered by this Court inSmt.Sarojni Bhoi(supra) on its\n\n        own merit in accordance with law within 30 days from the\n\n        date of receipt of a copy of this order.9. The    writ    petition    is   allowed     to    the   extent       indicated\n\n        hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).Sd/­\n\n                                                               (Sanjay K.Agrawal)\n                                                                     Judge\nB/­