1 - Trivendra Kumar Usendi S/o Late Ram Gulal Usendi Aged About 31 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46149 NAFR NIRMALA RAO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7056 of 2021 1 - Trivendra Kumar Usendi S/o Late Ram Gulal Usendi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Panchayat Dumarkot, Sadakpara, P. O. Baijanpuri, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instructions Department Of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents/ State : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate. Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: 2 “10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 To kindly set aside the order dated 11.7.2019 (Annexure-P/2) and direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh within stipulated time. 10.3 To kindly pass any other suitable direction or order or grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely Ram Gulal Usendi, was posted as Upper Division Teacher at Middle School Duva, Block Durgukondal, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker. He died in harness on 6.2.2019. He left behind three sons and a widow. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has two elder brothers. One of the petitioner’s elder brother is employed in government service, however, he resides separately and has never provided any financial support to the family. 3. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 11.7.2019 on the ground that one of the family members i.e. brother of the petitioner is in government service and according to clause 6A of Policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner was held to be ineligible for such appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that respondent No.3 rejected the application moved by the petitioner without conducting any enquiry into the financial status of the petitioner. He would contend that elder brother of the petitioner resides separately and has never provided any financial help to the dependent family. He would contend that in the matter of Nilesh Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., passed in WP(S) No. 3580 of 2021 it is held that the policy 3 for compassionate appointment must be read down and can only be applied after an enquiry is conducted by the respondents to ascertain the petitioner’s dependency status and any support which the petitioner is getting from earning member. He would pray to quash the order (Annexure-P/2) dated 11.7.2019. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 14.06.2013 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family members 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 7. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate appointment, has clearly held that if any members 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: 4 "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." 8. It is a well-settled principle of law that application for compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. Courts cannot direct appointment that is contrary to the policy in force. 9. However, it is also noted that the elder brother of the petitioner is in government service and therefore, in view of Clause 6A of the Policy, 2013, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 5 10. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 11.07.2019
Decision
(Annexure P/2). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi