Ku. Shashikala Xess vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 752 Chatt

                                        -1-


                                                                              NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                              WPS No. 3089 of 2021

      Ku. Shashikala Xess D/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Xess Aged About 20 Years
      R/o Village Urdana, Deepapara, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh
      Chhattisgarh
                                                                    ---- Petitioner
                                      Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School
      Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur
      District Raipur Chhattisgarh
   2. The Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
   3. The District Education Officer Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
   4. The Block Education Officer Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
                                                                ---- Respondents

      For Petitioner              :      Shri V. K. Pandey, Advocate.
      For State                   :      Ms. Binu Sharma, PL


                       Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                Order on Board

30/06/2021

1. Aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering

the claim for compassionate appointment, the present writ petition has

been filed.

2. The facts in nut shell is that the father of the petitioner was working under

the respondents as a Peon and who died in harness on 15.12.2019. On

the date of death of deceased, he was survived by this wife (the Widow)

and one son and a daughter. The son of the deceased already was in

government employment since 2010. He stood married in 2013 and he

has his own wife and children to take care of and is living separately from

that of the deceased from the time he got his service. Thus, on the date of

death of deceased, the wife and the present petitioner, the daughter of the

deceased were totally dependent upon the income of the deceased. The

petitioner immediately moved an application for compassionate

appointment. The authorities concerned processed the claim for

compassionate appointment. However, in the course of processing and

scrutiny a remark was put that the son of the deceased was already in

government employment and objections were called in this regard. The

petitioner have submitted their objections and clarifications to the

department specifically stating that the son got his appointment much

before death of the deceased. He also got married much before the

deceased had died and he has his own wife and children to take care of

and is residing at a different place altogether. The authorities are yet to

take a decision on the claim application of the petitioner.

3. Learned State counsel submits that since the objections have been

submitted by the petitioner and even before the government could take a

decision, the present writ petition has been filed. Thus, the same is

premature and therefore be not entertained.

4. Be that as it may, given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case the present

writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent

no.3 & 4 to take an appropriate decision on its own merits in accordance

with the rules and policies governing the field at the earliest preferably

within a period of 60 days. It is also necessary at this juncture to bring it to

the notice of the respondents that this Court in the recent past have in

various judgments of this Court held that claim for compassionate

appointment should not be rejected on the hyper technicality, that of

another member in the family being in government employment.

5. This Court has in the recent past have in many cases of similar nature has

specifically ordered that an enquiry should be conducted so far as

dependency part is concerned ascertaining whether the so called family

member who is in government employment is supporting the dependents

of the deceased in any manner and only then should a decision be taken.

This in other words means that an enquiry if it is found that family member

found to be in government employment is already is married, settled

elsewhere with his own family, wife, children and other dependents,

whether the said person can be treated as part of the dependents of the

deceased. Whether the said person can be expected to take care of the

responsibility and the liabilities of the remaining family members of the

deceased who were totally dependent upon the income of the said

deceased employee.

6. Let respondent no.3 & 4 take an appropriate decision after due scrutiny of

the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case mentioned in the

preceding paragraphs.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit