Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.08.26 16:07:36 +0530 2025:CGHC:42869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9324 of 2025 1 - Hemant Kumar Gagda S/o Late Jagbandhu Gagda Aged About 28 Years R/o Budhwari Bazar, Patelpara, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Narayanpur, Office of Collector Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tahsildar Narayanpur, Office of Tahsildar Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Abhishek Nirala on behalf of Shri Praveen Tulsyan, Advocate. Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Decision
Order on Board 25.08. 202 5 1. Aggrieved by rejection of the application for grant of compassionate appointment vide order dated 26.03.2025, 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 Jagbandhu Gagda, working as Assistant Grade-II with the respondent Department died in harness on 07.06.2024. On the date of death, the deceased employee i.e. the father of the petitioner was survived by the petitioner and two elder sons. In addition, the petitioner 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 moved an application for compassionate appointment on 02.07.2024, however, vide order impugned his application has been rejected on the sole ground that the elder brother of the petitioner is in a 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 has already married and he has his own family and also lives separately and not supporting financially, they do not fall within the definition of dependent of the deceased. Moreover, the elder brother who is already married and has his own family dependent upon him, cannot be considered to be a permanent source of income for the petitioner-applicant 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 petitioner and submits that since elder brother of the petitioner is already in government job, as such, in terms 3 of the policy for compassionate appointment, the candidature of the petitioner/applicant has been rejected and in the absence of 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 is not disputed by the petitioner. Even this fact of his government employment is given on oath by the elder brother of the petitioner himself on 31.07.2024. 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 count that elder brother of the petitioner 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 4 the immediate financial crises that they face upon the death of the bread earner in the family. 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 5 petitioner 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 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