Mungeli, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.11 10:57:46 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:45740 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2723 of 2021 Smt. Rajeshwari Dahire W/o Shri Jwala Prasad Dahire Aged About 41 Years D/o Late Chait Ram Kurre, R/o Village Sawantpur, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Directorate, Tribal Welfare Department Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. The Director Directorate Department Of Public Education Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. The District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 08-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- (i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the respondents Authorities. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 23.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) Passed by Respondent No. 7/The District Education Officer Bilaspur (C.G.) and the concern respondent authorities may be given direction to provide the compassionate appointment to petitioner for the post of peon in compliance of amended circular of the compassionate appointment dated 22.03.2016. (iii) Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favor of the petitioner. 2) The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely Chait Ram Kurre, who was working on the post of Assistant Teacher died in harness on 10.07.2012. The petitioner, who is the married daughter of the deceased employee moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment on 14.08.2017, which was rejected on 23.08.2017 on the ground that, according to the policy for compassionate appointment dated 10.06.2003, petitioner being the married daughter of the deceased employee is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for 3 compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner on 14.08.2017 and it was moved according to amended circular of compassionate appointment dated 22.03.2016, which includes married daughter as dependent of a government servant, thus petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment. He contends that though the petitioner’s father died in the year 2012 but, she moved application on 14.08.2017 immediately after insertion of amendment dated 22.03.2016 in the policy. He further contends that the respondent authorities rejected the application according to the policy for compassionate appointment dated 10.06.2003. He argues that petitioner has no source of income and she was totally dependent on her father. He prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. He submits that father of petitioner died on 10.07.2012 and on that date, policy dated 10.06.2003 was applicable. He further submits that according to the policy dated 10.06.2003, married daughter is not a dependent of a government servant, therefore petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment and the claim of petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) In the present case, father of petitioner died in the year 2012 and 4 she moved application for grant of compassionate appointment only in the year 2017 after amendment in policy for compassionate appointment dated 22.03.2016. It is well settled principle of law the policy prevailing at the time of death of government servant would apply while considering application for grant of compassionate appointment. The policy which was in force at the time of death of government servant did not include “married daughter” as dependent of a government servant, therefore claim of petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank vs. Ajith Kumar G.K., passed in Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025 while dealing with the similar issue in para 20 held as under:- “20. Be that as it may, soon after the decision in Amit Shrivas (supra), there have been two decisions of coordinate benches of two-Judges in Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157. The latter, upon considering the decisions in Amit Shrivas (supra) and Promila (supra), expressed the view in paragraph 5 thus: “5. As per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.” 5 7) The very object of providing the compassionate appointment is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time, and the same has been achieved as the family has already survived for such a long period. Compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to families who have experienced a sudden hardship. The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 471, while dealing with similar issue in paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under:- "7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee. 6 8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable." 8) Considering the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of Ajith Kumar G.K (supra) and Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (supra), I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the respondent authorities. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a