Nafr High Court
Case Details
SMT NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:40998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6919 of 2021 1 - Dilip Jangade S/o Late Poonaram Jangade Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Hardi, Post Bhimbhouri, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : ... Petitioner(s) Bemetara, Chhattisgarh versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate, holding the brief For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, P.L. of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction, thereby directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for 2 grant of appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of his father (now deceased), by adopting sympathetic view. 10.2 That, any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, namely Poona Ram Jangade, was serving as a Teacher under the respondents and he died in harness on 20.4.2021 during the COVID period. She would further submit that the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent authorities seeking a compassionate appointment. It is also contended that other family members executed affidavits in support of the said application. She would further contend that the application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the District Education Officer/respondent No.2 vide order dated 8.10.2021 on the ground that brother of the petitioner, namely Bharat Bhushan Jangade is already employed as a Teacher (LB) at Government Boys Middle School, Berla, District Bemetara, and his wife, namely Smt. Annapurna Jangade is serving as an Assistant Teacher (LB) at Government Primary School Lata, Block Berla, District Bemetara. She would also submit that the respondent authorities ought to have conducted an enquiry with regard to the financial status of the petitioner and the brother of the petitioner and his wife are residing separately, and they do not support the petitioner or other dependents of the deceased government servant financially. She would pray to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 14.06.2013 issued by the General Administration 3 Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member of the deceased government servant is in government service, no other family member is eligible to 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 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 4 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." 6) It is a well-settled principle of law that the application for compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the policy in force. 7) With regard to the ground taken by respondent No.2 that the wife of the petitioner is in government service, the same appears to be erroneous, as the wife of the petitioner was not a dependent upon the deceased government servant, namely, late Poona Ram Jangade. However, it is also noted that the brother of the petitioner, namely Bharat Bhushan Jangade, is employed as a Government Teacher and therefore, in view of Clause 6A of the Policy, 2013, the petitioner is not entitled to the compassionate appointment. 5 8) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned letter dated 8.10.2021 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi