1 - Rajeshwar Agariya S/o Balku Agariya Aged About 35 Years R/o H.No.-12, Sama v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Throgh The Secretary, Minister Of Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.17 11:44:51 +0530 2025:CGHC:40011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8349 of 2025 1 - Rajeshwar Agariya S/o Balku Agariya Aged About 35 Years R/o H.No.-12, Sama Para, Ambikapur, Bardhodhi, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Throgh The Secretary, Minister Of Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Superintendent Of Police Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh)
Legal Reasoning
3 - The District Commandant And Fire Extinguisher Officer Home Guard, Balrampur- Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 08/08/2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the memo dated 27-05-2025 (Annexure P- 1), whereby the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate 2 appointment has been rejected on the grounds that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sister of the petitioner was employed as a Female Home Guard and posted at the office of the District Commandant, Fire and Emergency Services, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj. She died on 17-01-2022 in harness. After her death, her husband had made an application for grant of compassionate appointment, which was rejected on 01-07-2022, on the ground that he did not qualify for the physical test. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased employee, filed his application for compassionate appointment on 03-06-2023, through online mode at the “Chief Minister Jan Darshan Portal”. The application of the petitioner is rejected vide memo dated 27-05-2025 on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as per the circular dated 15-09-2011 issued by the State government. He would further submit that, considering the financial hardship of the family of the deceased employee, the department ought to have provided compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The other family members have no objection to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Considering the beneficial provisions, the petitioner may be provided compassionate appointment in the department. Hence, this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the sister of the petitioner died in the year 2022, and he made his application in the year 2023 after the rejection of the application of the husband of the deceased employee. The brother of the deceased employee is not come under the definition of dependant nomination as provided in Clause 1 of the Compassionate appointment Policy of the department dated 15-09-2011 issued by the State Government. Therefore, the application of the petitioner 3 is rightly rejected by the authorities, and no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. Admittedly, the sister of the petitioner died on 17-01-2022, the petitioner made his application for compassionate appointment on 03-06-2023 after the rejection of the application for grant of compassionate appointment of her husband, which was rejected on 27-05-2025 on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed on 15-07-2025. Clause 1 of the Compassionate appointment Policy of the department dated 15-09-2011 provides for the nomination which reads as under:- vuqdEik ukekadu& 1- funsZ’k fdu izdj.kksa esa ykxw gksaxsa%& vuqdEik ukekadu fnoaxr Lo;a lsodksa ds ifjokj ds fuEu fyf[kr lnL;ks esa ls fdlh ,d dks nh tk,xh tks iw.kZr% ml ij आቦኌ(cid:3)त jgk gks & (d) fo/kok vFkok fo/kqj ([k) iq= vFkok] (x) vfookfgr iq=h] nRrd iq=@ iqf=;ka ‘kkfey jgsaxsaA (?k) uDlyh fgalk@ ?kVuk esa ‘kghn vfookfgr Lo;a lsoh uxj lSfudksa ij आቦኌ(cid:3)त HkkbZ vFkok vfookfgr cgu dks Hkh vuqdEik ukekadu dh ik=rk gksxhA "d” ds vLohdkj djus ;k ;ksX; u gksus ij gh “[k” dks ,oa mlds Ik’pkr “x” dks vuqdEik ukekadu ds fy, fopkj fd;k tk,xkA Vhi%& (v) fnoaxr Lo;a ls rkRi;Z ,sls Lo;a lsodksa ls gS tks jksy ij jgrs gq, fnoaxr gqvk gksA 6. The application for compassionate appointment made by the husband of the 4 deceased employee was rejected on 01-07-2022 on the grounds that he does not qualify for the physical ability test. There is no averment that her husband has challenged the said rejection. After rejection of his application, the present petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased employee, made his application on 03-06-2022 for grant of compassionate appointment. As per Clause 1 of the policy dated 15-09-2011, the brother of the deceased employee cannot be nominated for the grant of compassionate appointment, and the application of the petitioner has been rejected on this ground alone by the authorities. The petitioner could not demonstrate that he is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment by placing any rules that brother can be nominated for compassionate appointment. 7. In the case of “Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh”, reported in 2019(6) SCC 774 and “Indian Bank & Ors Vs. Promila & Anr” reported in 2020 (2) SCC 729, it has been held that though the Court has sympathy with the family members of the deceased, who face the death of the deceased, but sympathy alone cannot be the basis for granting remedy to such family members and it is not for the Courts to substitute a scheme, to add or subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “State of Gujrat and Others v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and Another”, 2012 (9) SCC 545, held that:- 8. It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another method of recruitment. A claim to be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Such a category of employment itself, 5 is an exception to the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16, which provide that there can be no discrimination in public employment. The object of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased to overcome the sudden financial crisis it finds itself facing, and not to confer any status upon it. (Vide Union of India v. Shashank Goswamß.) 9. The eligibility for the post may at times be misunderstood to mean qualification. In fact, eligibility connotes the minimum criteria for selection. that may be laid down by the executive authority/legislature by way of any statute or rules, while the term "qualification", may connote any additional norms laid down by the authorities. However, before a candidate is considered for a post or even for admission to the institution, he must fulfil the eligibility criteria. (Vide Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P.4) 9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the application of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment is rightly rejected by the authorities. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika