Lalit Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition of
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2997-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 16 of 2025 1 - Lalit Kumar S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Prasad, Aged About 31 Years, R/o House No. Barkolinaya, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Joint Director, Directorate of Panchayat, Sector- 19, North Block, Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, New Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector District- Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyyathan, District- Surajpur, C.G. ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant/Petitioner : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17-01-2025 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 1. The present writ appeal has been filed with following prayer:- 2 “It is therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal and the judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed in Writ Petition (s) No.8509 pf 2022, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, may kindly be set- aside and the writ appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice.” 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 12-11-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.8509 of 2022 (Lalit Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge are that, father of the petitioner/appellant, namely, Ghanshyam Prasad was working as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Barkoli Naya, Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.) who died in harness on 03-02-2022. After death of his father the petitioner has submitted an application for compassionate appointment supported with affidavit/consent deeds of other eligible family members and other requisite testimonials. After receipt of the application an investigation report regarding dependency was sought from a team constituted for the enquiry of his dependency and it was found in the enquiry that elder brother of the petitioner is in Govt. service. Thereafter, order has been 3 passed on 19-10-2022 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment by the competent authority. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent authority dated 19-10-2022 the petitioner/writ appellant has filed
Decision
the writ petition bearing WPS No.8509/2022 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12-11-2024. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. She further submits that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. She further submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered that brother of the petitioner is posted in C.G. Armed Forces and is residing separately prior to date of death of his father and the authorities have also not considered this aspect properly and thereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and as such the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order dated 12-11-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits 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. 4 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 7. 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 “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 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. 5 (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 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 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 father, 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 6 son/daughter) – dependent father, mother, brother and sister.” 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 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 7 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. (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 8 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 / policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred.” 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 government employment, I do not find any error in rejecting the application filed by petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 12. There is no merit in the writ petition which is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed” 8. From perusal of the impugned order dated 12-11-2024 passed in WPS No.8509 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 9 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. 9. 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. 10. In the result, there is no merit in the writ appeal, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Aadil