Hemant Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4219 Chatt

                                                                                                 NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                      WPS No. 4503 of 2022
    • Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Ayodhya Prasad Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o
      Village, Tahsil And Post - Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                       ---- Petitioner
                                               Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Education,
      Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
   2. The Collector, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
   3. The District Education Officer, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
   4. The Block Education                Officer,    Palari,    District    Balodabazar-Bhatapara
      Chhattisgarh.
   5. Vidhya Mandir Prathmik Shala Through The Principal, Rengadih, Post Jara,
      Block Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
   6. Rama Sahu Wd/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And Post
      Arjuni, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                  ---- Respondents


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate.

For Respondent/State                     :       Mr. Ravi Bhagat, PL.


                     Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.

                                         Order on Board

                                             (05-07-2022)

1. Heard on admission and also on I.A.No. 1 of 2022, which is an

application for grant of interm relief.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the

brother of deceased namely Mohan Lal Sahu who was working as an

Assistant Teacher in the school of respondent No.1. The brother of the

petitiner died in harness on 12-4-2022 while in service. The respondent

No.6 is the widow of deceased employee and there was a matrimonial

dispute between the deceased and respondent No.6 and divorce

proceeding is still pending but no final judgment and decree has been

passed. He would further submit that since there is a dispute

between the deceased and his wife, therfeore, the petitioner being a

brother of the deceased is entitled to claim compasionate

appointment and in this regard he has already applied for

compassionate appointment to the respondent authority on 27-4-2022

along with all necessary documents and same is pending before the

competent authority and till date no order on the application of the

petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is passed.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose and submit

that as per Clause (5) of policy of 2013 priority of the claim has

already been determined by the Government in their policy and first

preference wiil be given to widow, ii) son, iii) adopted son, iv) married

daughter, v) unmarried daughter, vi) widow lady and dependent

adopted daughter, vii) dependant divorced daughter /dependent

divorced adopted daughter and then daughter-in-law, and in case

the deceased is unmarried, the claim of brother and sister can be

considered on the recommendation of the mother and father of the

deceased employee.

4. The facts of the case are altogether different. In the present case,

there is a matrimonial dispute betgween the brother of the petitioner

and respondent No.6, but there is no order of divorce by the

competent court of law. Unless the marriage is dissolved by the

competent court, it cannot be said that the divorce between

deceased and respondent No.6 has taken place, as such respondent

No.6 being legally wedded wife of deceased employee is in priority

list, her claim can be considered by the State Government as per

policy of the Government, therefore, the petitioner's claim does not

fall within clause (5) of the Policy, therefore, he is not entitled to

claim compassionate appointement.

5. Accordingly, the writ petiton being devoid of merit is lilable to be and is

hereby dismissed at admission stage itself. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of

2022 also stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE

Raju