Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1770 of 2023 Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 1. Rahul Yadav S/o Late Prem Lal Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Nutan High School, Yadav Mohallah Tikrapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Indra Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Through Registrar, Krishak Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Dean Sant Kabir Agriculture College And Research Center Kawardha
Legal Reasoning
4. Smt. Madhu Yadav Wd/o Late Premlal Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Jora, Ward No. 28, Krishak Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Ku. Swati Yadav D/o Late Premlal Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Jora, Ward No. 28, Krishak Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6. Ku. Sweta Yadav D/o Late Premlal Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Jora, Ward No. 28, Krishak Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate : Mr. Pratik Tiwari, Panel Lawyer 2 For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For Respondent No.4 to 6 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J Order on Board 02/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Pratik Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1 as well as Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 &3. None appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, though notices were served upon them. Mr. Vinod Tekam, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. 2. By this petition, this petitioner has sought following relief : “i. To kindly direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable policy of the State Government within a fixed time period. ii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner died on harness on 05.02.2015 and being the eldest son the petitioner has moved an application for compassionate appointment on 20.02.2015, however, till date it has not been decided. At the time of death of father of petitioner, the petitioner was aged about 21 years old as his date of birth is 11.02.1993. 4. The petitioner has moved an application for grant of 3 compassionate appointment way back on 20.02.2015, supported by a consent letter of his mother and sister i.e. Smt. Rekha Yadav and Ms. Suman Yadav respectively, however, in-spite of the filing of the said application it has not been decided till date. Thereafter, an order of succession was also obtained by the petitioner on 04.01.2022 by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, i.e. II Civil Judge, Class -1, Raipur (C.G.). However, despite all the above facts, the respondent authorities are not deciding the compassionate application of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 has submitted that in the service record, name of two wives are mentioned and the petitioner has to get the consent letter from all the persons and thereby, they will process the application for compassionate appointment immediately. 6. The State counsel appearing in this case has submitted that the matter relates to respondent No.2 & 3 as they have to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted and relied upon an order dated 07.03.2022 passed in WPS No.1034 of 2022 (Piyush Kumar Anchal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). The relevant para – 14 is quoted as below : “14. In this regard, the decision of the Patna High Court in 4 Raj Kishore Kumar (supra) may be noticed herein profitably in which it has been held that it is the settled principle of law that the entitlement to 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. It has been observed in paragraph 9 as under : - 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the writ applications are allowed and the impugned letter dated 27.12.2005 and the decision of the Compassionate Committee dated District 8.12.2005 in C.W.J.C. No.993 of 2006 as also the impugned letter dated 8.11.2006 and the decision dated 10.8.2006 of the District Compassionate Committee in C.W.J.C. No. 16352 of 2008 are quashed and the matter is remanded to the District Compassionate Committee, Muzaffarpur to reconsider the cases of both the petitioners in accordance with law and take a final decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that as per the settled decisions of this Court the entitlement to compassionate appointment has to be considered in order of seniority, i.e., case of the elder brother, Jai Kishore Manto will have the first priority and only if his case is rejected then the case of the younger brother Raj Kishor Kumar shall be considered." 8. It has been stated that in the aforesaid case that in case of dispute between the various persons claiming the compassionate appointment, the eldest son should be given preference while granting compassionate appointment. As such, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are required to decide the application of petitioner for grant of 5 compassionate appointment within a period of 3 months considering the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition is finally
Decision
disposed off. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi