Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.18 17:12:10 +0530 2025:CGHC:41212 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6640 of 2021 Ghnashyam Dhruv, S/o Late Shri Bharat Lal Dhruv, Aged About 32 Years R/o Mujgahan, Ward-20, Syphen Para, Lohrasi, Road, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14. 08.2025 1. The present petition is filed being aggrieved by the arbitrary rejections of the candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 25.11.2020 (ANNEXURE P/1). 2. That, it is most specific to mention here that rejection of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been done on the ground that brother of the petitioner is working in a government job and therefore the petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment has been 2 rejected without conducting any enquiry as to the dependency factor of the petitioner on the deceased government servant. That, the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected in lieu of the Policy dated 29.08.2016 of letter number F 7-1/2012/1-3 Rule no. 6 issued by General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh. That, the respondent authorities have mechanically rejected the petitioner's claim and that the respondent authorities ought to have committed an enquiry to ascertain the fact about the dependency of the family members upon the deceased specifically, the petitioner who is the daughter of the deceased, mother and children of the petitioner. That the case of the petitioner may be considered as an exception to the aforementioned circular as the case of the petitioner is an exception to the object and purposes of the aforementioned circular dated 29.08.2016. That, the object of the aforementioned circular is to 'avoid grant of compassionate appointment to any other member of the family on the assumption that the other surviving member of the family, who is earning, would be taking care of other dependent members of the family'. That, presently it is evident that the earning son of the deceased who is the brother of the petitioner had already left the family and living separately and not providing financial help to other dependent of the family, therefore, it may be inferred here that the death of the father of the petitioner who was government servant has left all other dependents without any source of income to meet two ends meal. That, the respondent authorities have groundlessly rejected the candidature of the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry on their own claim that the family member/brother of the petitioner who is employed in the government service is actually living separately and not providing any financial help to other dependents of the family. That, the mechanical rejection of the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate 3 appointment, without conducting an inquiry to ascertain the dependency of the petitioner and other family members upon the deceased government servant is bad in the eyes of the law and is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 18.06.2020 on the ground that the petitioner was dependent solely on his deceased father. She would further submit that no financial assistance is being provided by his brother. She relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 5857 of 2021. 4. 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 6. 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 4 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." 7. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no
Decision
assistance to the petitioner’s case. In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that his elder brother does not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner's brother is already in government service, which is not 5 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. 9. 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. 10. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.11.2020 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant