Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:42253 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1811 of 2021 1 - Ku. Pushpa Mali D/o Late Lambodhar Mali Aged About 32 Years R/o Panara Para, Praveer Ward No. 1, Raja Math Gali, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Dagania, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent/s
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of present case, from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, afresh, in accordance with law, by conducting enquiry to the effect that whether the petitioner's sister namely Ku.Parmeshwari Mali is living separately or not. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely Lambodhar Mali, was working as a Peon under the respondent company, who died in harness on 21.12.2019. The petitioner's sister, namely Ku. Parmeshwari Mali @ Tinu is working as a Constable, and another married sister, namely Smt. Ranu Mali is also working as a Constable. The unmarried sister, namely Ku. Parmeshwari Mali is staying separately, and she never financially helped the petitioner or her old mother. The petitioner moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment, and it was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.08.2020 on the ground that the sister of the petitioner, namely Ku. Parmeshwari Mali is a government servant; therefore, according to Clause 6(1) of the policy for compassionate appointment dated 11.04.2018 issued by the respondent Company, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. 3. Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the reason assigned by respondent No. 2 in the order impugned dated 29.08.2020 is illegal and erroneous. He would further submit that the sister of the petitioner is residing separately and is not providing any financial help to the remaining dependent members of the family. He would contend that the respondent company ought to have conducted an inquiry to ascertain the financial condition of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Sulochana Netam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No.2728 of 2017, decided on 23.11.2017 and Smt. Nandani Pradhan and another Vs. 3 State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No.1025 of 2020, decided on 18.02.2020. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. He would submit that according to the policy for compassionate appointment issued on 11.04.2018, if any of the members of the family of the deceased employee mentioned in Clause 5 is in government service under the State/Union of India/Semi-Government Sector/power holding company, any of members of such family would not be entitled to the compassionate appointment. He would further submit that Clause 5 of the Circular dated 11.04.2018 includes widow/widower of the deceased employee, son/adopted son; dependent daughter/dependent adopted daughter; daughter-in-law totally dependent on the deceased employee and dependent brother/sister/parents of unmarried deceased employee. He would contend that the petitioner has not challenged the circular issued by the respondent company dated 11.04.2018. As regards the judgment relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel, he would argue that in Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Kevra Bai) and Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai), the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the direction for factual inquiry regarding the income, holding that there is no such provision in the policy; thus, he prays for the dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 4 6. In the matter of Smt. Sulochana Netam (supra), in para 9, the Coordinate Bench held as under:- "9. In the considered opinion of this Court, in a case where claim of compassionate appointment is made on the ground that the other earning member of the family had started living separately and was not providing any financial help to the remaining dependent members of the family of the deceased and who are left in lurch, factual enquiry ought to be made by the competent authority to arrive at its own conclusion of facts as to whether this assertion of other earning member living separately is factually correct or no. If it is found, as a matter of fact, that the other earning member of the family at the time of death had already started living separately and not providing financial assistance to the remaining dependents of the family, compassionate appointment must follow to eligible dependent of the family. However, in the enquiry, if it is found that the claim is only to get employment without there being any need because other earning member of the family is not living separately and providing financial support, compassionate appointment may not follow. The aforesaid enquiry is required to be done even though the policy does not categorically state so. The State should consider by incorporating amendments in the policy to death with this such contingency where it is found that on the date of death of government servant, the other earning member was living separately and not providing any financial help.” 7. The father of the petitioner, who was working as a Peon under the respondent company, died in harness on 21.12.2019. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment, and it was rejected vide order dated 29.08.2020. It is not in dispute that one unmarried sister of the petitioner, namely Ku. Parmeshwari Mali is in government service, working in the post of Constable. 8. Clauses 5 & 6(1) of the Circular dated 11.04.2018 are reproduced herein below:- “5 . अनु(cid:3)कं(cid:5) पा(cid:7) निनुयु(cid:3)ሹኌ(cid:12)(cid:13) हे(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:3) पा(cid:7)्ቔ उम्मी(cid:20)दवा(cid:7)र :- कि(cid:2)सी(cid:4) स्टे(cid:8)टे पॉ(cid:10)वर (cid:2)(cid:13) पॉनी(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:15) 5 किनीयमि(cid:18)त / (cid:2)(cid:20)य(cid:21)भा(cid:20)रिरत सी(cid:8)व(cid:20) (cid:18)(cid:24) (cid:2)(cid:20)य(cid:21)रत रहत(cid:8) हुय(cid:8) दि(cid:28)व(cid:13)गत (cid:2)(cid:20)ኌ(cid:18)(cid:31)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:8) आቦኌ"त पॉरिरव(cid:20)र (cid:2)(cid:8) किनीम्नीलि%खि’त वयस्(cid:2) सी(cid:28)स्य( (cid:18)(cid:24) सी(cid:8) कि(cid:2)सी(cid:4) ए(cid:2) सी(cid:28)स्य (cid:2)* सी(cid:18)स्त किनीኋ(cid:20)(cid:21)रिरत अह(cid:21)त(cid:20)ए(cid:13) एव(cid:13) शत. पॉ/्ቓ(cid:21) (cid:2)रनी(cid:8) पॉर अनी1(cid:2)(cid:13) पॉ(cid:20) किनीय1ሹኌ3त (cid:2)(cid:15) पॉ(cid:20)्ቔत(cid:20) ह*ग(cid:4)5- (1) (cid:18)6त(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:20)ኌ(cid:18)(cid:31)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:15) किवኋव(cid:20)/किवኋ1र (2) पॉ1्ቔ/(cid:28)्ቈ(cid:2) पॉ1्ቔ (3) आቦኌ"त पॉ1्ቔ(cid:4)/आቦኌ"त (cid:28)्ቈ(cid:2) पॉ1्ቔ(cid:4) (4) पॉ1्ቔवኋ1 जो* कि(cid:2) पॉ/्ቓ(cid:21)त5 (cid:18)6त(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:20)ኌ(cid:18)(cid:31)(cid:2) पॉर आቦኌ"त ह* (5) पॉ(cid:10)वर (cid:2)(cid:13) पॉनी(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:8) ऐसी(cid:8) (cid:18)6त(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:20)ኌ(cid:18)(cid:31)(cid:2) जो* कि(cid:2) अकिवव(cid:20)किहत थे(cid:8) अथेव(cid:20) जिजोनी(cid:2)(cid:15) (cid:2)*ई सी(cid:13)त(cid:20)नी नीह= ह>, (cid:2)(cid:8) आቦኌ"त भा(cid:20)ई/आቦኌ"त बहनी (cid:2)* (cid:18)6त(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:8) किपॉत(cid:20)/(cid:18)(cid:20)त(cid:20) (cid:2)(cid:15) अनी1श(cid:13)सी(cid:20) पॉर अनी1(cid:2)(cid:13) पॉ(cid:20) किनीय1ሹኌ3त ्ቚ(cid:28)(cid:20)नी (cid:2)(cid:15) जो(cid:20)एग(cid:4)। 6. अनु(cid:3)कं(cid:5) पा(cid:7) निनुयु(cid:3)ሹኌ(cid:12)(cid:13) कं(cid:24) अपा(cid:7)्ቔ(cid:13)(cid:7) :- (1) यदि(cid:28) दि(cid:28)व(cid:13)गत (cid:2)(cid:20)ኌ(cid:18)(cid:31)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:8) पॉरिरव(cid:20)र (cid:18)(cid:24) सी(cid:8) यदि(cid:28) (cid:2)(cid:13) किB(cid:2)(cid:20) 5 (cid:18)(cid:24) उल्%(cid:8)खि’त "(cid:8)्ቓ(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:20) (cid:2)*ई ्ቤሹኌ3त / सी(cid:28)स्य (cid:2)(cid:20)ኌ(cid:18)(cid:31)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:8) किनीኋनी (cid:2)(cid:8) पॉ/व(cid:21) सी(cid:8) ह(cid:4) र(cid:20)ज्य श(cid:20)सीनी/(cid:2)(cid:8) न्ቖኍIय सीर(cid:2)(cid:20)र/अኚ᭽(cid:21)श(cid:20)सी(cid:2)(cid:15)य सी(cid:8)व(cid:20)/स्टे(cid:8)टे पॉ(cid:10)वर (cid:2)(cid:13) पॉकिनीय( (cid:2)(cid:15) सी(cid:8)व(cid:20) (cid:18)(cid:24) ह* त* ऐसी(cid:8) पॉरिरव(cid:20)र सी(cid:8) कि(cid:2)सी(cid:4) (cid:2)* भा(cid:4) अनी1(cid:2)(cid:13) पॉ(cid:20) किनीय1ሹኌ3त (cid:2)(cid:15) पॉ(cid:20)्ቔत(cid:20) नीह= ह*ग(cid:4)।" 9. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while dealing with Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, has categorically held that an inquiry into the financial condition of dependents is not envisaged in the policy. Therefore, no such direction can be issued. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below:- "13. Clause 6A of the Scheme reads as follows: "6A. In the family of the deceased married government servant, if any other member of the family is already in government service, then the other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Explanation. Dependents of the family of deceased married and unmarried government servant shall include the following members: A) In case of married government servant - Dependent mother, dependent parents, widow/widower, son and daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) mother, brother and sister." 15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would go to show that it does not envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to 6 compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment." 10. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, who was working as a Peon under the respondent company, died in harness on 21.12.2019, and according to Clause 6(1) of the policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of compassionate appointment as his sister is a government servant. The petitioner has not challenged the said circular in the present petition. 11. It is a well-settled principle of law that an application for compassionate appointment must be decided strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. 12. Considering the fact that the sister of the petitioner is already in the government service, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities. 13. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rekha Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE