[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Shrikant Pathak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026

                                           1




 Digitally signed by
 NADIM MOHLE

                                                           2026:CGHC:14231

                                                                          NAFR

                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                 WPS No. 2402 of 2021

 Shrikant Pathak S/o Late Ramnihora Pathak Aged About 30 Years R/o Nagar
Panchayat , Pandatarai District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

                                        versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Agriculture
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Managing Director Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, Beej Bhawan ,
G.E.    Road,       Telibanda,       District   Raipur       Chhattisgarh.

3 - Additional Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Beej
Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibanda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
                                                            ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate

General For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate, holding

the brief of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

25/03/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

"10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02/12/2020 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Additional Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Raipur, (C.G.).

10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority the candidature of petitioner to be considered in the relevant post in Agriculture Marketing Board as per the qualification possessed by the petitioner.

10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against

order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the Additional Director, State

Agriculture Marketing Board, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the claim of the

petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the

ground that the petitioner's siblings are already employed in

Government service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's

father, late Shri Ramnihora Pathak, was serving as Sub-Inspector in the

Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) and died in a tragic

accident on 28.08.2020 while in service. He would further submit that

after his demise, the petitioner, being eligible and qualified (B.E. in

Electrical Engineering), applied for compassionate appointment,

supported by affidavits executed by his mother Smt. Usha Pathak and

his brothers, namely Chandrakant Pathak and Suryakant Pathak,

consenting to the grant of such appointment in favour of the

petitioner. He would further submit that though the petitioner's

brothers are in Government service, but they are living separately with

their respective families, which is substantiated by separate ration

cards, and the petitioner alone is maintaining his widowed mother. He

argued that the respondent authority has failed to consider these

crucial aspects and has mechanically rejected the petitioner's claim

solely on the ground of employment of his siblings, without proper

inquiry or application of mind; thus, the petition is liable to be set aside.

4. 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. 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.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents placed in the file.

6. 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."

7. 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 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 has already been reproduced hereinabove.

8. In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that his

brothers are living separately and are not providing any financial

assistance to him and his widowed mother cannot be a ground to

bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy.