Chattisgarh High Court
Trivendra Kumar Usendi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:46149
NAFR
NIRMALA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAO
WPS No. 7056 of 2021
1 - Trivendra Kumar Usendi S/o Late Ram Gulal Usendi Aged About 31 Years R/o
Village And Panchayat Dumarkot, Sadakpara, P. O. Baijanpuri, Kanker, District Uttar
Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Public Instructions Department Of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan,
Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - District Education Officer District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate holding
the brief of Mr. Vikas Dubey,
Advocate.
For Respondents/ State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
10/09/2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:
"10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the
respondents.
10.2 To kindly set aside the order dated 11.7.2019
(Annexure-P/2) and direct the respondents to reconsider the
claim of the petitioner afresh within stipulated time.
10.3 To kindly pass any other suitable direction or order or grant
any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts
and circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner,
namely Ram Gulal Usendi, was posted as Upper Division Teacher at
Middle School Duva, Block Durgukondal, District Uttar Bastar,
Kanker. He died in harness on 6.2.2019. He left behind three sons
and a widow. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has two elder
brothers. One of the petitioner's elder brother is employed in
government service, however, he resides separately and has never
provided any financial support to the family.
3. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.3 vide
order dated 11.7.2019 on the ground that one of the family members
i.e. brother of the petitioner is in government service and according to
clause 6A of Policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner
was held to be ineligible for such appointment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that respondent No.3
rejected the application moved by the petitioner without conducting
any enquiry into the financial status of the petitioner. He would
contend that elder brother of the petitioner resides separately and has
never provided any financial help to the dependent family. He would
contend that in the matter of Nilesh Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh
and Ors., passed in WP(S) No. 3580 of 2021 it is held that the policy
for compassionate appointment must be read down and can only be
applied after an enquiry is conducted by the respondents to ascertain
the petitioner's dependency status and any support which the
petitioner is getting from earning member. He would pray to quash
the order (Annexure-P/2) dated 11.7.2019.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit
that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 14.06.2013 issued by the
General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if
any family members of the deceased government servant is already
employed in government service, no other family member is eligible
for compassionate appointment. The State counsel 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 envisage any inquiry
into the financial condition of other family members, and eligibility is
to be strictly decided as per the terms of the policy.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed in the file.
7. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench, while
interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate
appointment, has clearly held that if any members of the family of a
deceased government servant is already in government service, no
other member of the family is eligible for a compassionate
appointment. Further 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."
8. It is a well-settled principle of law that application for compassionate
appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the
prevailing policy. Courts cannot direct appointment that is contrary to
the policy in force.
9. However, it is also noted that the elder brother of the petitioner is in
government service and therefore, in view of Clause 6A of the Policy, 2013,
the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
10. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 11.07.2019
(Annexure P/2). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is
hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
