Ku. Pushpa Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1639 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Ku. Pushpa Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 August, 2025

                                             1




                                                                             NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                  WPS No. 1533 of 2022
      1 - Ku. Pushpa Thakur D/o Late Rooplal Thakur, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
      Rengakathera, Post Mathdabri, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon
REKHA Chhattisgarh.                                          ... Petitioner(s)
SINGH




                                          versus
   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue,
   Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur,
   Atal, Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

   2 - Collector, (Land Records), Narayanpour, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.

   3 - Deputy Collector, District Naryanpur Chhattisgarh.   ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudha Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate For State : Ms.Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board 11/08/2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

"(a) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 15/1/2021 bearing No.53/Land.Rec./Estb.-1/2021 passed by the respondent No.3.

(b) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, in lieu of death of her father, within a stipulated time period as may be fixed by this Hon'bie Court.

(c) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

(d) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

2. Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the father of the petitioner, namely late Rooplal Thakur was

working as Revenue Inspector under the respondents. He died in

harness on 18.08.2020 and an application for compassionate

appointment was moved by the petitioner on 09.10.2020. He would

further submit that vide order dated 15.01.2021, the application of the

petitioner has been rejected on the ground that one of the family

members of the deceased employee is already in government service.

In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment

passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Smt. Savita Gajbhiye

Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No.3620 of 2021 , wherein the

following observations were made in paras 13 to 15, which are

reproduced hereinbelow:-

"13. Considering the fact that the brother of the petitioner No. 2 in government employment, what needs to be verified is whether the said person can be brought within the ambit of dependent. Whether the said person can be compelled to take care of the petitioner and his widowed mother particularly when he has his own family and children to take care of and he has been living separately altogether.

14. In the absence of any such situation, the policy of the State Govt. to that extent so far as compassionate appointment is concerned, has to be read down to be decided only after an enquiry which needs to be conducted by the respondents, ascertaining the dependency part arid also in respect of any support which the petitioner is getting from the brother. In view of the same the rejection of the impugned order only on the basis of elder son in the family being in government employment in terms of the policy of the State Government would not be sustainable. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order needs to be reconsidered and the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner No. 2 by strict interpretation of the policy would not be sustainable.

15. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order, Annexure P-3 dated 16.06.2021 deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The authorities are directed to re- consider the claim of the Petitioners afresh taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs and take a fresh decision at the earliest within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

3. Ms. Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the

State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. She

would 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. She would further submit 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, she 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, she prays 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. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner's case.

7. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, late Rooplal Thakur, died in

harness on 18.08.2020. The application for compassionate

appointment was submitted on 09.10.2020 and was rejected by

respondent No.3/Deputy Collector, Narayanpur on 15.01.2021 on the

ground that one member of the family is already in the Government

service.

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