Reena Hichami vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4818 Chatt

                                                                                                 NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                      WPS No. 5110 of 2022
    • Reena Hichami D/o Late Mr. Siyaram Hichami Aged About 27 Years By Caste
      Gond, Village- Kantagaon, Post- Parsoda, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar
      Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                       ---- Petitioner
                                               Versus
    • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department,
      Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
    • District Education Officer District North Baster, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District :
      Kanker, Chhattisgarh
    • The Collector North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker,
      Chhattisgarh
    • Block Education Officer Block Charama, District- North Baster Kanker,
      Chhattisgarh
                                                                                    ---- Respondent



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

For petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mrs. Sunita Jain, GA.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.

Order on Board (27-07-2022)

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition assailing the order dated 6-7-2022 whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent No,.2/ District Education Officer, District North Bastar, Kanker on the count that the brother of the petitioner is already in government service. He would further submit that though tenure is 15 years, five years have already elapsed and ten years is to be left.

2. As per policy of the State Government if any employee is in the Government service, then dependent is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. The aforesaid issue is no more res intgra as Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh and

others vs. Kevrabai Markandey and another) decided on 23-2-2022 has observed in para 8 & 9 of the judgment which read 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 18-2-2022 (State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Smt. Muniya Kukharjee), this court analysed the provisions contained under Clauses 5 and 6A of the Scheme and recorded as follows as paragraphs 15 & 16.

"15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would go to show that it dies 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 of 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"

3. In the light of aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of this court, the instant writ petition is dismissed at admission stage itself. Consequently, I.A.No.1, application for grant of ad-interim relief also stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE

Raju