Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Kumar Ragde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 March, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
2025:CGHC:10832
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6259 of 2021
1 - Manoj Kumar Ragde S/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Aged About 31 Years
R/o Budhwari Bazar, Ward No. 15, Balouda, Tahsil Balouda, District Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration And
Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station
And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Joint Director Urban Administration And Development Department
Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Range Commissioner Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Collector Office Of The Collectorate, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
5 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Baloda, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate.
For State/Res. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
05.03.2025
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated
23.09.2021 (Annexure P/12) passed respondent No. 5/ Chief Municipal
Officer, Balouda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) whereby application
of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been
rejected on the count that his mother- Smt. Guddi Bai is working as
Sweeper as such compassionate appointment cannot be granted to
the petitioner in view of circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by State
Government with respect to compassionate appointment.
Digitally
signed by
ARUN
ARUN KUMAR
KUMAR DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.03.05
17:10:47
+0530
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not in dispute
that petitioner's mother is in regular government service but the
petitioner is living separately with his mother and he is not dependable
on earning of his mother and would pray for quashing of the impugned
order dated 23.09.2021.
3. This issue is no more res integra as Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey &
another [Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (decided on 23.02.2022)] has
examined this issue and held that if any family member is in
government job, the dependent of his family is not entitled to get
compassionate appointment, wherein it has been held at paragraph 8
& 9 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 18.02.2022 (State of
Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee), this
Court analyzed the provisions contained under Clauses 5 and
6A of the Scheme and recorded as follows at paragraphs 15 &
16 :
"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.
16. Explanation to 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."
4. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in Kevra Bai Markandey (Supra), I am not inclined to entertain
this petition.
5. Accordingly, rejection of application for compassionate appointment
dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P/12) is affirmed and the instant petition is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
