For Petitioner : Ms. Akansha Vishwakarma, Advocate
holding the brief of Ms. Seema
Singh, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
04/09/2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
10.(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
strictly direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider the
claim of the petitioner and issue appointment letter in favour of
the petitioner on the compassionate basis within stipulated time
looking to the low condition of the petitioner, in the interest of
justice.
10.(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and
circumstances of the case, may also be granted.
2. Ms. Akansha Vishwakarma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, Shri Ramkumar
Sahu, died in harness on 11.04.2021 while posted in Bilaspur to the
post of Head Constable. She would contend that the mother of the
petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment
on behalf of the petitioner before respondent No. 3, but vide order
dated 15.09.2021, the respondent No. 3 rejected the application on the
ground that one of the family members i.e. son of deceased, namely
Vikas Sahu is already working in the Forest Department, and therefore,
the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
3. Ms. Akansha Vishwakarma further submits that thereafter the petitioner
had challenged the order dated 15.09.2021 by filing WPS No.
6541/2021 before High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated
02.12.2021 with a direction to respondent No.2/Senior Superintendent
of Police, Bilaspur to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh. She
would contend that in compliance of the order dated 02.12.2021
passed by the High Court, the petitioner made representation dated
13.12.2021 for grant of compassionate appointment before respondent
No. 3, but same has been rejected vide order dated 17.02.2022 by
respondent No. 3 on the ground that one of the family members is
already in Government service. She would submit that the rejection of
the application is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the policy in force,
and prays for quashing of the impugned order.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per the
circular dated 29.08.2016 and revised circular dated 23.02.2019 issued
by the General Administration Department, Government of
Chhattisgarh, if any family members of the deceased employee is
already in Government service, the other family members would not be
eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. He further relies on
the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of
Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai), wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has
categorically held that the policy does not contemplate any inquiry into
the financial status of other family members, and eligibility is to be
decided strictly as per the conditions of the policy.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on file.
6. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing
compassionate appointments, has clearly held that if any member of
the family of a deceased married government servant is already in
government service, no other member of the family is eligible for
compassionate appointment. The relevant portion of Clause 6A reads
as under:
"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."
7. In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that her
brother does not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to
bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner's brother is already in government service,
which is not disputed by the petitioner. Clause 6A of the compassionate
appointment policy was inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016 and the
petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said circular in the
present petition.
9. It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for compassionate
appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the
prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the
policy in force.
10. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 17.02.2022 and
15.09.2021 passed by respondent No. 3.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
