For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate
alongwith Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate
For State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
Annexure P-1 and direct the respondent authority to
consider and grant compassionate appointment as per
inquiry report and direction of this Hon'ble Court in earlier
round of litigation within stipulated period, in the interest of
justice.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to held
clause 6 (a) of policy dated 23.09.2019 as void and
inoperative being arbitrary, discriminatory because without
any enquiry it deprives family members of deceased
employee from consideration to get compassionate
appointment, in the interest of justice.
(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and
circumstances of the case, may also be granted."
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father-in-law
of the petitioner, namely, Ramsnehi Pandey who was working as a
Constable in Police Line Bilaspur died in harness on 15.09.2020.
He would contend that the petitioner applied for grant of
compassionate appointment on 12.7.2021 but her application was
rejected on the ground that the wife of younger brother of the
deceased is already in government service. He would submit that
pursuant to an order passed in WP(S) No.5949 of 2021 an
enquiry was conducted wherein it is found that the wife of younger
brother of the deceased, namely Smt. Mishthi Pandey is not
financially supporting the family and payment of family pension
has been closed after death of mother-in-law of the petitioner. He
would submit that as there is a specific finding recorded by the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, the respondent
authorities ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner for
grant of compassionate appointment.
3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per
Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General
Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any
family member of the deceased government servant is already
employed in government service, no other family member is
eligible for compassionate appointment. He has relied 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.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed in the file.
5) In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench,
while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing
compassionate appointments, has clearly held that if any member
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."
6) In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that the
wife of younger brother of the deceased does not support or maintain
the family cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under
Clause 6A of the policy.
7) Admittedly, the wife of younger brother of the deceased is already in
government service, which is not disputed by the petitioner. Clause 6A
in the compassionate appointment policy was inserted vide circular
dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the
said circular in the present petition.
8) 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.
9) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any
ground to entertain this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition
is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Nimmi
