Chattisgarh High Court
Shikhardeep Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:38819
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5634 of 2021
1 - Shikhardeep Thakur S/o Sudamaram Thakur, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village -
Amdi (M), Tahsil And District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh,
Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, School Education Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - The Director, Directorate Of Pubic Instruction, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3 - The District Education Officer, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh,
District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Block Education Officer, Chhura, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District :
Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishan Kumar Sonkar, Advocate holding the brief
of Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
05/08/2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent
authorities to take decision on the claim of petitioner for
grant of compassionate appointment, within stipulated
period, in accordance with law.
10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and
just in the facts and circumstances of the case including
award of the costs of the petition may be given."
2. Mr. Sonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the
brother of the petitioner, namely Gyandeep Thakur was working as
Assistant Grade-III in the Higher Secondary School, Kansinghi, Block-
Chhura, District Gariyaband (C.G.). He was appointed vide order dated
12.02.2016 and died in harness on 21.07.2019. He was unmarried. The
petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment in the month
of June, 2021. The application of the petitioner was forwarded to
respondent No.3 by respondent No.4 vide letter dated 22.06.2021 but
till date, decision has not been taken.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr.
Sonkar. He would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for
compassionate appointment as father of the petitioner namely,
Sudamaram Thakur is a Government servant, working on the post of
Assistant Superintendent at Collectorate office Gariyaband (C.G.). He
would further submit that according to Clause 6A of the Policy, if one of
the family members of the deceased is already in Government service,
any other member of the family would not be entitled to compassionate
appointment. He would contend that the petitioner has not challenged
the circular issued by the General Administration Department, State of
Chhattisgarh, dated 29.08.2016, whereby clause 6A was inserted. As
per the circular dated 29.8.2016, if any member of the deceased's
family is already in Government service, no other family member is
eligible for compassionate appointment. As regards the judgment relied
upon by the petitioner's counsel, he would argue that in Writ Appeal
No. 91 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Kevra Bai) and Writ Appeal
No. 33 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai), the Hon'ble
Division Bench set aside the direction for factual inquiry regarding the
income, holding that there is no such provision in the policy; thus, he
pray for the dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed in the file.
5. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench, while
dealing with Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment,
has categorically held that an inquiry into the financial condition of
dependents is not envisaged in the policy. Therefore, no such direction
can be issued. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below:
"13. Clause 6A of the Scheme reads as follows: "6A.
In the family of the deceased married government
servant, if any other member of the family is already
in government service, then the other member of the
family will not be eligible for compassionate
appointment. Explanation. Dependents of the family
of deceased married and unmarried government
servant shall include the following members: A) In
case of married government servant - Dependent
mother, dependent parents, widow/widower, son and
daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/
divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of
unmarried government servant (or widower having no
son/daughter) mother, brother and sister."
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."
6. Admittedly, brother of the petitioner, namely Gyandeep Thakur who
was working on the post of Assistant Grade-III in the Higher Secondary
School, Kansinghi, Block-Chhura, District Gariyaband (C.G.) died in
harness on 21.07.2019. The petitioner moved an application for
compassionate appointment. The said application has not been
decided yet by the respondent authorities.
7. Admittedly, father of the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant
Superintendent at Collectorate Office, Gariyaband (C.G.) and
according to Clause 6A of the Policy for compassionate appointment,
the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment.
8. Clause 6A was inserted in the policy for compassionate appointment
vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the
said circular in the present petition.
9. It is a well-settled principle of law that an application for compassionate
appointment must be decided strictly in accordance with the prevailing
policy.
10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any
justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order.
11. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
JUDGE
Rekha
