1 - Smt. Roshni Goswami W/o Shri Brajraj Puri Goswami Aged About 29 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Social Welfare Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:44153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4090 of 2022 1 - Smt. Roshni Goswami W/o Shri Brajraj Puri Goswami Aged About 29 Years R/o Devnagar, Police Station- Koni, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Social Welfare Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Social Welfare Department, Mana Camp, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Social Welfare Department, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/ State : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate. Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire records in respect of case of petitioner. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the letter dated 18/05/2022. (ANNEXURE-P/1) 2 10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment. 10.4 Any other relief which may Hon'ble Court think fit in the circumstances.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the mother of the petitioner, namely Chandra Kanta Goswami was working on the post of Aaya under the respondents. She was appointed on 1.10.2009. Her services were transferred from Bijapur to Bilaspur. She met with a road accident near Kondagaon on 9.10.2019, while she was going to Bilaspur to join her duties and on account of injuries sustained died. She left behind her husband and two children. It is pleaded that Tarun Giri Goswami, brother of the petitioner, is working on the post of Constable in the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Dantewada but he stays separately and has never provided any financial support to the family. 3. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 10.12.2019. A reminder letter was sent by the petitioner on 21.12.2021. She was directed to submit information vide letter dated 8.4.2022 to the effect that as to whether any of the family members was employed in government service or not. The petitioner duly provided the information on 11.4.2022 stating therein that her brother, Tarun Giri Goswami is employed as a Constable in the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces at Dantewada. 4. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 18.5.2022 on the ground that one of the family members i.e. brother of the petitioner is in government service and according to 3 clause 6A of Policy for compassionate appointment, she is not entitled to appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that respondent No.3 rejected the application moved by the petitioner without conducting any enquiry with regard to financial status of the petitioner. He would contend that brother of the petitioner, Tarun Giri Goswami, resides separately and has never provided any financial help to the dependent family. He would contend that in the matter of Nilesh Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., passed in WP(S) No. 3580 of 2021, where it is held that the policy for compassionate appointment must be read down and can only be applied after an enquiry is conducted by the respondents to ascertain the petitioner’s dependency status and any support which the petitioner is getting from the brothers. He would pray to quash the order (Annexure-P/1) dated 18.5.2022. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 14.06.2013 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family members of the deceased government servant is already employed in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. The State counsel further relies on the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically held that the policy does not envisage any inquiry into the financial condition of other family members, and eligibility is to be strictly decided as per the terms of the policy. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 8. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate appointment, has clearly held that if any members of the family of a deceased government servant is already in government service, no other member of the family is eligible for a compassionate appointment. Further 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." servant would be entitled 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 to government 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 5 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." 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that application for compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. Courts cannot direct appointment that is contrary to the policy in force. 10. However, it is also noted that the brother of the petitioner, namely Tarun Giri Goswami is employed as a Constable and therefore, in view of Clause 6A of the Policy, 2013, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 11.Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned letter dated 18.05.2022
Decision
(Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge