Gausiya Parveen vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 635 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Gausiya Parveen vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 July, 2025

                                        1




                                                                         NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                            WPS No. 1150 of 2021

1 - Gausiya Parveen W/o Late Shri Manjoor Ahmad Aged About 35 Years R/o
Sanjay Nagar, Ameen Kirana Store Ward No.- 50, Bajrang Mandir, Raipur,
Civil And Revenue District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
                                                                ... Petitioner(s)

                                     versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary General Administration
Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - The Principal Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Ring, Rd Number 3, Near
Shaheed Udyan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492005, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh

3 - Additional Secretary And Public Information Officer Vidhan Sabha
Secretariat Chhattisgarh.                                   ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : None appears in two rounds. For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.07.2025

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

"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent to allow the prayer made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice."

2. The facts of the present case are that Manjoor Ahmad/husband of the

petitioner, was appointed to the post of Driver in Vidhan Sabha

Secretariat on 29.09.2003. He died in harness on 23.08.2017. Late

Manjoor Ahmad is survived by two wives, the petitioner and Smt.

Shahnaz Parveen and the amount of retiral dues were equally divided

between them.

3. The petitioner moved an application for the grant of compassionate

appointment on 04.09.2017, and it has been rejected by the

respondent authorities vide order dated 05.12.2017 on the ground that

Smt. Shahnaz Parveen is already a Government servant. The

petitioner has challenged the said order by filing the instant petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in

the Policy for compassionate appointment, there is a specific clause

that if any of the members of the deceased employee is in Government

service, the dependent would not be entitled to get the compassionate

appointment. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 236 of

2022, parties being State of Chhattisgarh and Others Vs. Umesh

Thakur decided on 07.07.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench in

paras- 3 and 4 held as under:-

"3. The larger Bench / full Bench of this Court by its order dated 21.06.2023 has answered the reference as under:-

"When one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable

policy bars and prohibits he consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing / rewording of the terms of the applicable scheme / policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred."

4. A careful perusal of the order passed by the full Bench would show that the full Bench of this Court has clearly held that no such inquiry can be made qua the dependency / financial support by one of the family members of the deceased who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased who has made the application for compassionate appointment. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain and accordingly, set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent herein would stand dismissed."

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

documents placed on the record.

6. From a perusal of the documents and reasons assigned by the State

authorities, it is quite vivid that one of the family members of the

petitioner is already in Government service and there is a specific

clause in the Policy that if any of the members of the deceased

employee is in Government service, the dependent would not be

entitled to get compassionate appointment.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, I do not find any

good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent

authorities.

8. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha