Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Md. Imran Khan on 30 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 80 of 2022
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh Pin 492002.
2. Chief Engineer Mahanadi Pariyojana, Water Resource Department,
Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Superintending Engineer Mahanadi Mandal, Water Resource
Department, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Executive Engineer Mahanadi Jalashay, Water Resource Department,
Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
Md. Imran Khan S/o Late Md. Ayyub Khan Aged About 32 Years R/o Santoshi
Nagar, Chaurasiya Colony, In Front of Navrang Public School, Raipur, Tahsil
And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
______________________________________________________________
For Appellants : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Advocate
_____________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
30.09.2022
Heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for the appellants and Mr. Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel,
appearing for the respondent.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 19.10.2020 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 4146 of 2020.
3. By an order dated 26.05.2020, the claim of the respondent / writ
petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that his
brother was in Government service.
4. The learned Single Judge, relied on a decision of the Single Bench in
Smt. Sulochana Netam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, Writ Petition (S)
No. 2728 of 2017, decided on 23.11.20217, wherein it was held that an
enquiry is required to be conducted as to whether the other earning member
had started living separately and was not providing any financial help to the
remaining dependent members of the family of the deceased. Since no such
enquiry was held, learned Single Judge directed the appellants herein to
consider the case of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh
after due verification of the dependency part of the writ petitioner on the
person who is already in service.
5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that this case is squarely
covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh (Writ Appeal No. 334 of 2021), decided on 10.12.2021.
6. Relying on Clause 6 (A) of the Consolidated Revised Instructions
regarding compassionate appointment on the death of a government servant
during his service, 2013, which is the scheme for consideration of grant of
compassionate appointment, this Court, in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra) at
paragraph 16 held 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."
7. In view of the above, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be
sustained in law and as such, the impugned order of the learned Single is set
aside and quashed.
8. Writ appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
