Partik Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the wri
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17796-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 244 of 2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.24 12:51:32 +0530 Pratik Kumar Shrivas S/o Lt. Ashok Kumar Shrivas Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Ekta Colony, Khamtarai, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, (Note - Current Age Of The Appellant Is 25 Years) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Tehsil - Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel. Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.04.2025 2 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent / State on I.A. No.01/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 230 days in filing the instant appeal. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2978 of 2024 (Partik Kumar Shrivas vs. State of
Decision
Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Briefs facts of the case are that the father of the appellant namely Ashok Kumar Shrivas was working as AG-III/the then reader, in Revenue Department, Sub Tehsil Ratanpur, Tehsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and died in harness on 29.08.2021. Mother of the Appellant namely Bhagwati Shrivas had died on 26.04.2021, leaving behind children namely (1). Surbhi Shrivas, (2). Damini Shrivas, (3). Aman Shrivas, (4). Prateek Shrivas. The Appellant applied for compassionate appointment. Appellant's sister Damini was married and was already serving as Government Servant, 3 since prior to death of father. Vide memo no. 2036, Bilaspur dated 14.07.2022 (wrongly mentioned in letter as 14.07.2022 while it should be 14.07.2023), the Appellant was intimated that, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment because one famıly member of the deceased government servant i.e. Lt. Ashok Kumar Shrivas, namely Smt. Damini Shrivas is already under government service as Lecturer in Government Hr. Sec. School. Udhnapur, District Manendragarh (C.G.) and point No. 6A of consolidated revised directions 2013, issued by GAD of CG Government vide its letter No. F7-1/2019/1-3, Atal Nagar Raipur, dated 23.02.2019, speaks that if any family member of the deceased married government servant is already in government service then no other family member of the deceased government servant, will be entitled for compassionate appointment. On receiving of said letter, the appellant represented before Collector Bilaspur that his married and employed sister Damini does not come under dependent family member of the deceased government servant. She came in government service in life time of father and being married she was not dependent upon father and as per the existing circumstances at the relevant point of time, he alone is the dependent family member of deceased government servant hence his application for compassionate appointment be considered sympathetically under the circumstances. The ofÏce of Collector Bilaspur vide its memo no. 3021, dated 25.09.2023, filed the application of appellant on similar grounds. The scheme of compassionate appointment and directions governing this field were issued as- "Consolidated 4 Revised Directions for Compassionate Appointment, 2013 dated 14.06.2013 and amendments therein and consolidated compilation of circulars issued from time to time (as amended upto 31.03.2024) and Directions dated 15.04. 2024". The Appellant had challenged the said order dated 14.07.2023 (which is wrongly mentioned in letter as dated 14.07.2022), of Addl. Collector Bilaspur whereby the Appellant was denied compassionate appointment on the count that the Appellant's sister is employed at government service in education department before Hon'ble High Court vide WPS No. 2978/2024, which was dis-allowed vide order dated 13.06.2024. Hence this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellant has a right to obtain dependent employment and the rejection of application for grant of compassionate appointment to the Appellant is highly illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. The object of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the dependents of the deceased government servant. The policy aims at protecting dependent members of the family of the deceased government servant from acute financial stress, starvation and vagrancy. The appellant, son of the deceased government servant is now left in lurch. The appellant is not in employment and was fully dependent on his father, who is now dead. The other children of deceased government employee have issued consent letter in favour of Appellant to grant him compassionate appointment. In a situation like this, denial of compassionate appointment would be against the very spirit and 5 object of compassionate appointment. Appellant's sister Smt. Damini was married and was in government employment prior to the death of her father, the deceased government servant namely Shri Ashok Shrivas and after marriage and employment, she never remained dependent upon said government servant. After marriage, she became member of different family unit and was looking after her matrimonial family. While considering the eligibility of the appellant for compassionate appointment, the respondent authorities failed to properly appreciate the words used in direction no. 5 & in explanation to direction no. 6 (a) wherein the eligible candidate of the family is mentioned as 'dependent family/member'. Although the previously used word 'unmarried daughter' has been substituted by word only 'daughter', but this eligibility is given to the daughter may be married or unmarried but should necessarily be dependent upon the deceased government employee. While rejecting the application the respondent and while rejecting the petition, the learned Single Judge should have also considered the family unit in Indian Culture and parlance where after marriage the daughter becomes member of a different family unit and looks after her liabilities towards that family and her own new family. The members of the deceased government employee cannot be treated as dependent family members of married daughter in government service. This aspect is also required to be considered that if on death of this married sister, employed in government service, the members of family of this deceased government employee (father) would not have been considered as her dependent family members, 6 entitled to have compassionate appointment in her place then how her being in government service can put a rider in granting compassionate appointment to the remaining dependent family members of the deceased government employee (father). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mgb Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6348 of 2013 and in the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors (1994) 4 SCC 138, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “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 a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased..... The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned..... The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family.” 8. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 7 impugned order and materials available on record. 10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 334/2021 decided on 10.12.2021 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held as under:- “16. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only on the basis of scheme applicable for such appointment. When the scheme itself provides that no appointment shall be granted on compassionate ground, if any of the family members is in government service, no appointment can be claimed on the ground that the family member in government service is not giving any financial assistance. No obligation is cast upon the government under the scheme to find out as to whether such employee is providing any financial assistance to the other members of the family." 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, in an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or 8 perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet