Chattisgarh High Court
Yogeshwari Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2022
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 5025 of 2022
Yogeshwari Sahu Daughter of Shiv Kumar Sahu Wife of Charan
Singh, aged about 37 years, Resident of Village, Post and Police
Station Konta, Dikstrict- Sukma (C.G.).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Home Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.).
2. Superintendent of Police, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.).
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Konta, District Sukma
(C.G.).
---- Respondents
_________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate.
For State. : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, P. L.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
(25.07.2022)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner's
brother who was working as constable, died on 16.03.2021. The
deceased brother of the petitioner was bachelor therefore, the
petitioner is a younger sister of the deceased as such she has
applied for compassionate appointment which has been rejected
by the respondent vide order dated 14.10.2021 on the count that
her father is already in government service and as per the policy
applicable at the time of death of employee, if any family member
is in the government service then no one is entitled for the
compassionate appointment.
Page 2
2. No more res-integra as the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
has examined this issue in WA No. 91/2022 in case of State of
Chhattisgarh Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey on 23.02.2022 and
concluded the issue in paragraph 8 & 9 which reads as under:
"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 go to 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."
Page 3
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."
3. In light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of the
Court, the instant petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is
at liberty to challenge the policy before the concerned Authority. ,
if so advised
Sd/--
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Amita
