Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate with Ms v. Agrawal
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5339 of 2018 1 - Sakun Bai Dewangan W/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. 403, Ward No. 11, Village, Post, Tahsil And Police Station- Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon, 2 - Khileshwar Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 403, Ward No. 11, Village, Post, Tahsil And Police Station- Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Secretariat, Mahyanadi Bhawan, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Office Of The Collectorate, Rajnandgaon, Disrtict- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh., Rajnandgaon, District : 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Revenue, Office Of The Sub Divisional Officer (R), Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil Office- Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioners For State/respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
that the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in WPS No.2728 of 2017 (Smt. Sulochana Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per the circular dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member of the deceased employee is already in Government service, the other family members would not be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. He further relies on the judgment passed 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 contemplate any inquiry into the financial status of other family members, and eligibility is to be decided strictly as per the conditions of the policy, thus, the reliance placed by the counsel for the 4 petitioner in the matter of Smt. Sulochana Netam (supra) is of no help. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 5. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate appointments, has clearly held that if any member 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. 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 5 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." 6.
Arguments
Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate with Ms. V. Agrawal, Advocate Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05/08/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner and after its perusal allow the petition. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23/04/2018 (Annexure P/6) passed by the respondent No.2 Collector, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in which the claim of compassionate appointment of petitioner No.2 has been rejected. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents authority to enquire the matter of petitioners according to the decision passed in W.P.(S) No.2728/2017 and in case if it is found that the petitioners are not getting financial help and the elder son of the petitioner No.1 and his wife Smt. Arti Dewangan are living separately, the petitioners case for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.2 should be considered favourably. 10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be please to award compensation to the petitioners from the respondents authority towards mental harassment and torture. 10.5 That the Hon’ble Court direct the respondents authority to give cost of the litigation to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.2, son of deceased employee Ramesh Kumar Dewangan, applied for 3 compassionate appointment after his father's death in harness on 08.10.2017. The application was rejected solely on the ground that the elder son and daughter-in-law of the deceased are in government service. It is contended that the petitioner No.2 and his mother (petitioner No.1) are residing separately from them and were wholly dependent on the deceased. The elder son and his wife neither reside with the petitioners nor provide any financial support. It is submitted
Decision
In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioners that elder son & daughter-in-law of the deceased employee does not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy. 7. Admittedly, the elder son and daughter-in-law of the deceased are in government service, which is not disputed by the petitioners. Clause 6A in the compassionate appointment policy was inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioners have not challenged the validity of the said circular in the present petition. 8. It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the policy in force. 6 9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P/6). 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Nadim (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE