Alpana Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition of the a
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.06 18:27:40 +0530 2025:CGHC:571-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 881 of 2024 Alpana Kujur D/o Late Subhash Chandra Kujur Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Nilkanthpur, P.O. Katima, Thana / Tehsil Kusumi, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. versus --- Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Upper Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax, (Excise) Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Manatralay, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Office of The Excise Commissioner Through The Upper Commissioner (Excise), G.S.T. Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Office of The District Excise Officer Through The District Excise Officer, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble
Legal Reasoning
rendered by the Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.334/2021 decided on 10.12.2021, State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Kevra Bai Markandey and Anr. (Writ Appeal No.91 of 2022, decided on 23.02.2022, as also reference answered by another Division Bench in case of Purendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (WPS No.6689 of 2018 decided on 12.01.2022) and further in the light of principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh and Anr v. Prakash Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285 and Central Bank of India Vs. Nitin (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873), dismissed the writ petition by observing as under :- “6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is daughter of the deceased employee who was working as Excise Constable and died in harness on 08.06.2023. Perusal of the impugned order would show that claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected in view of provision under Clause 6 (A) of the Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment – 2013 (for short “Consolidated 6 Instructions of 2013”), which is reproduced as under: “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 for compassionate appointment. be eligible not 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 father, widow/widower, son and daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government having no servant widower father, son/daughter) – dependent mother, brother and sister.” (or 7. Perusal of the above provision clearly stipulates that compassionate appointment shall not be granted to the member of the family as categorized therein if any other member of the family is already in government employment. From the pleading made in the writ petition it is clear that, brother of the petitioner is already in government employment and working on the post of Constable in Police Department is not disputed. 8. The issue as to whether this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is empowered to direct the State Government to hold an enquiry qua the dependency/financial support by one of 7 the family members of the deceased Government servant, who is already in Govt. service, to the dependent of the deceased government servant claiming compassionate appointment is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by this Court. 9. Application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the guidelines framed by the State Govt. Courts would not rewrite the terms of the guidelines as it is in exclusive domain of State Government. 10. In the case of State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur Full Bench of this Court while answering reference to the question “when any dependent family member of deceased employee is already in Government service, in that circumstances whether any other member of the family would be deprived for employment on compassionate ground, without consideration of dependency of family on such Government employee” , taking note of the decisions rendered by Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.334/2021 decided on 10.12.2021, State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey and Anr. (Writ Appeal No.91 of 2022, decided on 23.02.2022, reference answered by another Division Bench in case of Purendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. 8 (WPS No.6689 of 2018 decided on 12.01.2022) and in the light of principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh and Anr Vs. Prakash Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285 and Central Bank of India Vs. Nitin (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873), held as under :- “When one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing /rewording of the terms of the applicable scheme for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred.” policy / 11. For the foregoing discussions, in view of the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above and taking note of the relevant policy i.e. Compassionate Appointment Instructions- 2013 amended in the year 2016, which clearly provides that compassionate appointment shall not be granted to the member of the family as categorized therein if any other member of the family is already in 9 government employment, I do not find any error in rejecting the application filed by petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.
Arguments
Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents. 2 2. The appellant/writ petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) in this appeal: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ appeal, thereby, set aside/quash the impugned order/judgment dated 03-10-2024 passed by Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 6222/2024 in the case of Alpana Kujur v State of Chhattisgarh & ors. (iii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to set-aside the impugned order denying compassionate appointment dated 29-05- 2024 so far as it relates to the Appellant. (iv) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice may kindly be awarded.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.6222 of 2024 (Alpana Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 4. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge are that, father of the appellant, namely Late Subhash Chandra Kujur 3 while working as Excise Constable in District- Jashpur died in harness on 08.06.2023. After death of her father, petitioner was submitted an application for compassionate appointment supported with affidavits/ consent deed of other eligible family members. After receipt of application an investigation report regarding dependency was sought from Excise Sub-Inspector Jashpur region, upon which it was reported that brother of the appellant who is working as Constable is residing separately from the appellant and her mother and further that the appellant does not receive any financial support or aid from her brother. Tthe respondent authorities ought to have inquired into the matter as to whether brother of appellant who is in Government employment was providing any assistance to her or not. There ought to have been some sort of preliminary enquiry so far as dependency part was concerned by respondent authorities prior to reaching to conclusion. Thereafter, an order dated 29.05.2024 has been passed, whereby application of the appellant for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by respondent authorities. 5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the respondent authorities dated 29.05.2024, appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.6222 of 2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2024. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that 4 impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge is without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by dismissing the petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 9. After appreciating the contentions advanced on behalf of the respective parties as well as considering the material available on record, learned Single Judge has found that application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the guidelines framed by the State Government and the Courts would not rewrite the terms of the guidelines as it is in exclusive domain of the State Government. As such, after applying Clause 6(A) of the Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment-2013 as well as Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Umesh Thakur while answering reference to the question 5 “when any dependent family member of deceased employee is already in Government service, in that circumstances whether any other member of the family would be deprived for employment on compassionate ground, without consideration of dependency of family on such Government employee” as also taking note of the decisions
Decision
12. There is no merit in the writ petition which is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed” 10. From perusal of the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 passed in WPS No.6222 of 2024, it transpires that the learned Single Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the guidelines as also the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as also Full Bench judgment of this High Court and taking into account the Compassionate Appointment Instructions-2013 amended in the year 2016, which clearly provides that compassionate appointment shall not be granted to the member of the family as categorized therein if any other member of the family is already in Government employment, has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 11. In view of the above, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. In the result, there is no merit in the writ appeal, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu