Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Yogesh Kumar Pandey on 8 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 348 of 2022
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayat And Rural Development , Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi , Atal Nagar, New
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Upper Development Commissioner Office of Development
Commissioner, Vikash Bhawan, 4th Floor, Sector 19, North Block,
Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Yogesh Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shri Pardeshi Pandey Aged About
35 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Near Saraswati Gyan Mandir , Bagbahra,
Tahsil And Police Station Bagbahra, District Mahasamund
Chhatitsgarh.
2. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Office of Chief Executive Officer,
Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
3. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Janpad Panchayat Bagbahra,
District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Abhishek Pandey and Mr. Ghanshyam
Sharma, Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
08.07.2022
Though an application for condonation of delay without mentioning
the number of days delay has been filed, note of the Registry indicates
that the appeal is filed within time.
2. This appeal is preferred by the respondents No. 1 & 2 of the writ
petition.
3. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General,
appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey and
Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent
No. 1 / writ petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the parties submit that no notices were
issued to respondents No. 3 & 4 of the writ petition, who are arrayed as
respondents No. 2 & 3 in this appeal.
5. This appeal is presented against an order dated 31.08.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4343 of 2021.
6. The writ petition was filed challenging an order dated 08.03.2021 by
which, appellants herein had rejected the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment on the ground that his elder brother is
already in government employment.
7. Relying on a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in the
case of Smt. Sulochana Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others in WPS
No. 2728 of 2017 decided on 23.11.2017, the learned Single Judge
directed that an enquiry be conducted by the authorities to ascertain
dependency and also to find out as to whether the petitioner is getting
any support from his elder brother and thereafter, to re-consider the claim
of the petitioner in the light of the observations made.
8. Mr. Pali submits that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Neeraj Kumar Uke vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others inWA No. 334 of
2021 decided on 10.12.2021, had held in categorical terms that no
obligation is cast upon the government under the relevant scheme to find
out as to whether the family member of the deceased employee, who is
in government service, is providing any financial assistance to the other
members of the family and therefore, the order of the learned Single
Judge is required to be set aside and quashed.
9. Mr. Pandey submits that the writ petitioner is living separately from
his elder brother and no financial assistance given to him by his brother.
But he fairly submits that the case is covered by the judgment rendered in
Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra).
10. In Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra), at paragraph 16, it was observed as
follows:
"16. It is no longer res integra that compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as
it is not a vested right. Compassionate appointment
can be claimed only on the basis of scheme applicable
for such appointment. When the scheme itself provides
that no appointment shall be granted on
compassionate ground, if any of the family members is
in government service, no appointment can be claimed
on the ground that the family member in government
service is not giving any financial assistance. No
obligation is cast upon the government under the
scheme to find out as to whether such employee is
providing any financial assistance to the other
members of the family."
11. We find that this case is squarely covered by the judgment
rendered in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra) and accordingly, the order of
learned Single Judge is set aside.
12. Appeal is allowed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
