Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Nemin Bai Sahu vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6698 of 2021
Smt. Nemin Bai Sahu, D/o Late Shri Himmatram Sahu, W/o Shri
Khemraj Sahu, Aged About 30 Years, Occupation- Un-Employed, R/o
Village - Odarsakari, Thana and Tahsil - Arjunda, District - Balod (C.G.)
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Education
Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex,
Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector Balod, District - Balod (C.G.)
3. District Education Officer Balod, District - Balod (C.G.)
--- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate.
For State : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
05/08/2022
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated
28.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed respondent No. 3 whereby
application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has
been rejected
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has
been rejected on the count that some family member of her
family is in government job.
3. This issue is no more res integra as Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Kevra Bai
Markandey & another1, has examined this issue and held that if
any family member is in government job, the dependent of his
family is not entitled to get compassionate appointment, wherein
it has been held at paragraph 8 & 9 as under:-
1 Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (decided on 23.02.2022)
"8. The relevant scheme for compassionate
appointment is contained in Consolidated Revised
Instructions on Compassionate Appointment,
2013( for short, 'Scheme'). In WA No. 33 of 2022
decided on 18.02.2022 (State of Chhattisgarh &
Others Vs. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee), this Court
analyzed the provisions contained under Clauses
5 and 6A of the Scheme and recorded as follows at
paragraphs 15 & 16 :
"15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme
would goto 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.
16. Explanation to clause 6A does not in any
way relate to family of the deceased married
government servant. What is the relevance of
the explanation is also not discernible
inasmuch as when the scheme had excluded
dependent parents for being considered for
compassionate appointment, there is no
purpose in describing who are the
dependents of the deceased married
government servant."
9. Since another son of the deceased employee is
already in government service, such son, who is in
the government employment,would come within
the meaning of a family of the deceased
employee."
4. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in Kevra Bai Markandey (Supra), I am not inclined to
entertain this petition.
5. Accordingly, rejection of application for compassionate
appointment dated 28.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) is affirmed and
the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
