Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agarwal, J., held that an illegitimate son would be entitled to consideration on compassionate ground and cannot be denied consideration on the ground that he is the illegitimate son of the deceased Government servant.
The petition was directed against the order by which respondent 2 had directed the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate in order to claim a compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father.
The father of the petitioner died in harness on being infected by COVID-19.
Suresh Kumar Anchal was the son of the deceased’s first wife and had claimed compassionate appointment, whereas the son (present petitioner) through wife Tara Devi had also filed an application for compassionate appointment.
Respondent 2 had directed Tara Devi and the present petitioner to obtain a succession certificate, by the impugned order.
Issue for consideration
Whether petitioner’s mother was the first wife of the deceased Government servant or the mother of Suresh Kumar Anchal, who also claimed compassionate appointment being another son of the deceased from Rajkumari, was the first wife of the deceased Government servant?
High Court stated that the fact remains that even the illegitimate son/daughter is also entitled to a compassionate appointment.
Who amongst the two sons would be entitled to the compassionate appointment?
High Court noted that, the candidates who would be eligible for compassionate appointment have been given in para 5 of circular dated 14-6-2013, which shows that preference has been given for consideration on compassionate ground in para 5 and if a widow or widower of the deceased Government servant is not eligible, then only, son / adopted son would be entitled to consideration and in absence of that, daughter / adopted daughter would be entitled to consideration.
Patna High Court in Raj Kishore Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2009 SCC OnLine Pat 582, held that it is the settled principle of law that the entitlement to the compassionate appointment has to be considered in order of seniority, i.e., case of the elder brother will have the first priority and only if his case is rejected then the case of the younger brother shall be considered.
In view of the above decision of the Patna High Court, this Court remitted the matter to the respondent authorities to consider the application after giving them an opportunity to file representation qua their entitlement/eligibility.[Piyush Kumar Anchal v. State of C.G., 2022 SCC OnLine Chh 513, decided on 7-3-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 / State: –
Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Advocate General.
For Respondents No.2 to 5: –
Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.
