1 - Surti Tiwari W/o Late Shri Umashankar Tiwari/ Sharma Aged About 51 Years v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Home/police Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35629 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7445 of 2025 1 - Surti Tiwari W/o Late Shri Umashankar Tiwari/ Sharma Aged About 51 Years R/o Harinagar Near Muskan Palace Durg Police Station- Mohan Nagar Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.). 2 - Shivanshu Tiwari S/o Late Shri Umashankar Tiwari/ Sharma Aged About 17 Years R/o Harinagar Near Muskan Palace Durg Police Station- Mohan Nagar Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Home/police Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya P.S. And Post- Rakhi Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Chhattisgarh Armed Force (CAF) Police Headquarter (PHQ) Sector-19 P.S. And Post-Rakhi Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police (DIGP) Office of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) Chhattisgarh Armed Force (CAF) Police Headquarter (PHQ) Sector-19 P.S. And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Commandent Officer Of Commandent 7th Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Force (CAF) Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Decision
Order on Board 23.07. 202 5 1. Aggrieved by rejection of the application for grant of compassionate appointment vide order dated 18.10.2023, the present writ petition has been filed. The rejection has been on the ground that the applicant has an elder brother who is in government employment and therefore under the policy his claim stands rejected. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that, the father of petitioner namely 2 Umashankar Tiwari, working on the post of Head Constable with the respondent Department died in harness on 25.04.2023. On the date of death, the deceased employee i.e. the father of the petitioner was survived by the petitioners and one elder son. In addition, the applicant has an elder married sister. The elder brother is already in government employment, but living separately even before the deceased had expired. Similarly the sister of the petitioner also is already married. On account of death of the deceased, the petitioner No.2 moved an application for compassionate appointment on 02.06.2023, however, vide order impugned his application has been rejected on the sole ground that the elder brother of the petitioner is already in government employment and under the policy the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the elder brother got his employment long back and he is already saddled with his own liability and not supporting financially, he does not fall within the definition of dependent of the deceased. Moreover, the elder brother who lives separately, cannot be considered to be a permanent source of income for the petitioner-applicants and his other family members for sustaining themselves. To that extent, the authorities ought to have conducted an enquriy and thereafter should have taken a decision. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that since elder brother of the petitioner is already in government job, as such, in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment, the candidature of the petitioner No.2/applicant has been rejected and in the absence of 3 any challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondent authority cannot be said to be illegal and bad in law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. All said and done, one of the family member i.e. elder son of the deceased employee is already in government service posted in Indian Air Force at West Bengal is not disputed by the petitioners. Even this fact of his government employment is given on oath by the elder brother of the petitioner himself as also the petitioner No.1/wife of deceased employee. The financial crisis or penury is the basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government. As such, the action of the respondent authorities rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment is justified on the ground that elder brother of the petitioner No.2/applicant is already in government employment. 7. As regards the scheme for compassionate appointment is concerned, the legal position as it stands, it has been time and again laid down by the Supreme Court as also by this court that the scheme for compassionate appointment can only be considered strictly in accordance with the scheme and policy applicable at the relevant point of time. Moreover, it is also settled position of law that compassionate appointment cannot be considered as another mode of recruitment. The very purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to ensure that the family members of the deceased employee are able to meet the immediate financial crises that they face upon the death of the bread earner in the family. 4 8. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court in Yash Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, Writ Appeal No.842/2024, vide order dated 12.12.2024, has affirmed the order passed by learned Single Judge in which the claim for compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that one of the family member is already in government service. The relevant para is quoted hereinbelow:- “13. Learned Single Judge further held that it is not in dispute that the mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi as such, it cannot be said that deceased employees died in harness entitled the appellant to get compassionate appointment. Even the retiral dues of the Government Servant along with emoluments earned by the family members of the Shiksha Karmi who are now government servant cannot be said to be insufficient to fall the appellant within the ambit of sudden financial crisis or penury. The financial crisis or penury is basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government regarding grant of compassionate appointment. As such, the action of the respondents authorities in canceling the appointment or not issuing appointment order to the appellant on compassionate ground is justified on the count that mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi who is not government servant still he is in gainful employment and it cannot be held that appellant is having sudden financial or pecuniary crisis, as such, the order of cancellation of appointment is legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity. 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 9. Thus, applying same analogy to the facts of present case, since the elder brother of the petitioner is already in government service, as per policy of compassionate appointment of the State Government, the petitioner No.2/applicant cannot be given compassionate appointment. The policy of the State Government has been affirmed by learned Single Bench as also by the order passed by the Division Bench of this 5 Court in the said Writ Appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment and his application for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondent department. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. inder Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge