Chattisgarh High Court

Ganesh Nirmalkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 March, 2025

Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas

Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas

                                                           1




                                                                             2025:CGHC:10726


                                                                                            NAFR

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                                WPS No. 2989 of 2021

                          Ganesh Nirmalkar S/o Gariba Ram Nirmalkar, Aged About 33 Years
                           R/o. Sbi Colony, Zone-3, Street No. 8 New Adarsh Nagar, Durg,
                           District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                     ... Petitioner

                                                        versus

                         1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School
                            And Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
                            Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                         2. Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
                            Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
                            Chhattisgarh
                         3. Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg,
                            Chhattisgarh
                         4. District Eduacation Officer, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh,
                            District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
                         5. Block Education Officer, Balod, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District :
                            Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                                               ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

05.03.2025

1. The petitioner who is brother of deceased Smt. Meera Nirmalkar

teacher LB Government Middle School Chicha, Dhamdha has filed

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date:

2025.03.25 15:50:42 +0530

this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

challenging the impugned order dated 25.01.2021 (Annexure- P/1)

passed by the respondent No. 4 by which the petitioner's

application for grant of compassionate appointment has been

rejected by the District Education Officer Durg.

2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that deceased Smt.

Meera Nirmalkar who was a divorced lady was appointed

01.08.2005 as Shikshkarmi thereafter, she was promoted on

21.10.2016 as Teacher Panchayat in the pay scale of 4500-125-

7000. The deceased Smt. Meera Nirmalkar took divorce from her

husband and later on she expired on 24.09.2018, thereafter, the

sister-in-law of deceased Smt. Shobhana Nirmalkar has moved an

application for grant of compassionate appointment which was

rejected by the District Education Officer Durg on the count that

there is no such provision for grant of compassionate appointment

for the sister-in-law of the deceased employee, therefore, the

present petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate

appointment vide Annexure P/4. Thereafter, the petitioner's

application has been rejected on 25.01.2021 by the District

Education Officer Durg on the count that the deceased was a

divorced lady, as such she cannot be treated as unmarried,

therefore, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate

appointment has not been considered and accordingly, it has

rejected the same.

3. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred this

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mainly

contending that the petitioner is dependent on the earning of the

deceased and he falls within the ambit of the family as she was

petitioner's sister and no one was in the family to look after her

after divorce, therefore, the rejection of the application by the

respondent is without application of mind and deserves to be set

aside.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State would oppose the

submission and would submit that the circular issued by the State

Government on 14.06.2013 clearly defined the family and

dependent which are extracted below. The Clause 5 of the circular

dated 14.06.2013 also provides that who will be eligible for grant of

compassionate appointment and Clause 6 provides that the

dependents who falls within the ambit of dependents. Clause 5

and 6 reads as under:-

"5- vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq ik= mEehnokj & fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifjokj ds fuEufyf[kr o;Ld lnL;ksa esa ls fdlh ,d lnL; dks uhps nf'kZr Øekuqlkj vFkkZr~ ¼d½ ds vLohdkj djus ij ;k ik= u gksus ij ¼[k½ dks ,oa mlds i'pkr~ blh vuqØe esa vkxs ¼x½] ¼?k½ ,oa ¼³½ dh vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq Øe'k% fopkj fd;k tk;sxk %& ¼d½ fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh fo/kok@fo/kqj] ¼[k½ iq=@nÙkd iq=] ¼x½ 1[* * *] iq=h@1 [* * *] nÙkd iq=h] ¼?k½ vkfJr fo/kok iq=h@vkfJr nÙkd fo/kok iq=h ,oa] ¼³½ vkfJr rykd'kqnk iq=h@vkfJr rykd'kqnk nÙkd iq=h]

[¼p½ iq= o/kqA]"

6- vfookfgr 'kkldh; lsod dk fu/ku gksus ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr & ,sls 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q gksus ij] tks vfookfgr gS vFkok fo/kqj gS vkSj mlds dksbZ iq=@iq=h ugha gS rks ,sls fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ekrk@firk dh vuq'kalk ij 3[HkkbZ@cgu] dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gksxhA 4[;fn HkkbZ@cgu vo;Ld gks] rks fu;ksDrk }kjk bl laca/k esa vfookfgr fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ekrk@firk ls varfje vkosnu i= izkIr fd;k tk;s rFkk vo;Ld lnL; HkkbZ@cgu ds o;Ld gksus ij mls mldh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij r`rh;@prqFkZ Js.kh ds in ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr nsus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk,xh % ]

[ijUrq e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj esa ;fn iwoZ ls gh ifjokj dk dksbZ vU; lnL; 'kkldh; lsok esa gS] rks ifjokj ds vU; fdlh Hkh lnL; dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA ]

[6&v- fnoaxr fookfgr 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj esa ;fn iwoZ ls gh ifjokj dk dksbZ vU; lnL; 'kkldh; lsok esa gS] rks ifjokj ds vU; fdlh Hkh lnL; dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA ]

[ Li"Vhdj.k-& fnoaxr fookfgr ,oa vfookfgr 'kkldh; lsodksa ds ifjokj ds vkfJr lnL; esa fuEufyf[kr lnL; 'kkfey gksaxs%& ¼v½ fookfgr 'kkldh; lsod ds ekeys esa & vkfJr ekrk] firk] fo/kok iRuh@fo/kqj ifr] iq= ,oa iq=h ¼buesa nÙkd iq=@iq=h] fo/kok@rykd'kqnk iq=h 'kkfey gSa½ rFkk iq=o/kqA ¼c½ vfookfgr 'kkldh; lsod ¼vFkok fo/kqj ftlds dksbZ iq=@iq=h ugha gS½ ds ekeys esa & vkfJr ekrk] firk] HkkbZ ,oa cguA ]

5. Thus, he would submit that in the same list the brother of the

divorced lady has not been included, therefore, the claim of the

petitioner has rightly been rejected. Lastly, he would submit that

the grant of compassionate appointment can be strictly considered

in terms of policy/circular issued by the State Government in this

regard and no alteration and modification is permissible as

compassionate appointment is a policy matter where the

interference is less permissible as per law, thus, he would pray for

dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the policy

and documents annexed with the writ petition.

7. From bare perusal of the consolidated circular dated 14.06.2013,

particularly Clause 5 and 6, it is quite vivid that the widow and

widower of the deceased government servant, son/daughter,

daughter/adopted daughter as well as dependant divorced lady

and adopted daughter then daughter-in-law are included in the list

who are eligible for grant of compassionate. The petitioner being

brother of the divorced sister has not been included in the list who

is eligible for grant of compassionate appointment, therefore, I am

of the view that the respondent No. 1 has not committed any

illegality and irregularity in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that grant of

compassionate appointment has to be strictly considered in terms

of the policy/circular which has been framed by the State

Government. No divergent from the policy is permissible, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest judgment in case of Canara

Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. in Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025

reported in 2025 INSC 184 has considered the entire law for grant

of compassionate appointment in paragraph 11 and the relevant

portion reads as under:-

"11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order):

x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar]. y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur].