Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.25 12:04:50 +0530 2025:CGHC:40445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5564 of 2021 * - Saurabh Sharma S/o Ramanuj Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Gayatri Nagar, Ward No. 03, Khairagarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Director Public Instructions Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Block C, First Floor, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Kairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 22/03/2021 (Annexure P-1) and 2 23/24.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) whereby the application of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to kindly enquire into the case of the present petitioner with respect dependency on mother and accordingly provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with law. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petition is preferred against the illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable order dated 22.03.2021, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is ineligible since his father (one of the family members) is already in government service. It is contended that the petitioner was solely dependent on his mother, living separately from his father, and no financial assistance was provided by the father. It is further submitted that neither any enquiry was made nor the impugned order reflects consideration of the petitioner’s specific plea of dependency on his mother. The impugned order also makes reference to an earlier order dated 01.02.2017, which, according to the petitioner, was communicated to him only after more than four years. The petitioner further challenges the earlier rejection order dated 23/24.11.2009 (Annexure P-2), which was also passed mechanically without due consideration of his application. It is argued 3 that the respondents failed to conduct an enquiry into the petitioner’s dependency, despite authoritative pronouncements of this Court mandating such enquiry. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member 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. 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 4 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 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." 5 6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner is already in government service, which is not disputed by the petitioner. Clause 6A in the compassionate appointment policy was inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said circular in the present petition. 7. 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. 8.
Decision
In view of the above-stated legal position, the plea of the petitioner that he was solely dependent on his mother and not maintained by his father cannot be a ground to bypass the express bar under Clause 6A of the policy. In my opinion, the impugned orders dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) and 23/24.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) are thus in consonance with the policy and cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti