[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Gautam Bhagat vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:43428
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8048 of 2025
1 - Gautam Bhagat S/o Late Dileshwar Ram Bhagat Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village Upar Gamhariya, P.O. Bagiha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Director General Of Police Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Inspector General Of Police Sarguja Range, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh
4 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police And Senior Superintendent Of Police
District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
5 - Superintendent Of Police District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
26/08/2025
1. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for the grant of
compassionate appointment vide orders dated 22-08-2022 (Annexure
Digitally
signed by
VED
VED PRAKASH
PRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.08.28
18:31:30
+0530
2P-1), 18-01-2023 (Annexure P-2), 15-09-2023 (Annexure P-11), and
30-08-2024 (Annexure P-14), the present writ petition has been filed.
The rejection has been on the grounds that the daughter of the
deceased employee is already in government employment and,
therefore, under the policy, his claim is rejected.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner,
namely Dileshwar Ram Bhagat, working as Constable No. 173, with
the respondent department, died in harness on 06-04-2022. On the
date of death, his daughter Ku. Gulshan Bhagat was already in service
as a Staff Nurse and posted at District Hospital, Jashpur, and she is in
service since 2019. On account of the death of the deceased
employee, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate
appointment on 06-05-2022; however, vide order dated 22-08-2022,
his application has been rejected on the ground that the daughter of
the deceased is in government employment and under the policy, the
petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Another
application for compassionate appointment has also been rejected on
18-01-2023 on the same ground that the daughter of the deceased
employee is in government employment. The repeated applications of
the petitioner were again rejected vide orders dated 15-09-2023 and
30-08-2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the daughter
of the deceased was already married and residing at her matrimonial
house, and living separately from the petitioner, she does not fall within
the definition of a dependant of the deceased. She cannot be
3
considered a member of the family after her marriage. The petitioner is
the son of the deceased employee, and after his death, has no source
of livelihood and income. To that extent, the authorities ought to have
conduct an enquiry and thereafter should have taken a decision.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission
made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and submits that since
daughter of the deceased employee is already in government
employment, in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment, the
candidature of the petitioner/applicant has been rejected and in
absence of any challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondent
authorities cannot be said to be illegal and bad in law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
6. All said and done, one of the family members, i.e. daughter of the
deceased employee, is already in government employment is not
disputed by the petitioner, though it is stated that she has already
married and is residing at her matrimonial house. The financial crisis
and penury are the basic parameters for consideration of
compassionate appointment in view of the objective and policy framed
by the State Government. As such, the action of the respondent
authorities rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking
compassionate appointment is justified on the grounds that the
daughter of the deceased employee is already in government
employment.
4
7. As regards the scheme for compassionate appointment is concerned,
the legal position as it stands, it has been time and again laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also by this Court that the scheme for
compassionate appointment can only be considered strictly in
accordance with the scheme and policy applicable at the relevant point
of time. Moreover, it is also a settled position of law that compassionate
appointment cannot be considered as another mode of recruitment.
The very purpose of granting a compassionate appointment is to
ensure that the family members of the deceased employee are able to
meet the immediate financial crisis that they face upon the death of the
breadwinner in the family.
8. In the present case, in the order dated 22-08-2022 (Annexure P-1), it
has been clearly mentioned that an enquiry was conducted about the
facts that whether any family member of the deceased employee is in
government employment or not, and it is found that his daughter is in
government employment since 2019. This has been reiterated in the
order dated 30-08-2024 also. Thus, a proper enquiry was also
conducted in the matter, and his application for compassionate
appointment is rejected on that very ground.
9. Recently, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in “Yash Kumar
Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others“, Writ Appeal No.
842/2024, order dated 12-12-2024, has affirmed the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in which the claim for compassionate
appointment has been dismissed on the ground that one of the family
5
members is already in government employment. The relevant para is
quoted herein below:-
“13. Learned Single Judge further held that it is not in
dispute that the mother of the appellant is working as
Shiksha Karmi as such, it cannot be said that
deceased employees died in harness entitled the
appellant to get compassionate appointment. Even the
retiral dues of the Government Servant along with
emoluments earned by the family members of the
Shiksha Karmi who are now government servant
cannot be said to be insufficient to fall the appellant
within the ambit of sudden financial crisis or penury.
The financial crisis or penury is basic parameter for
consideration of compassionate appointment in view
of the object and policy framed by the Government
regarding grant of compassionate appointment. As
such, the action of the respondents authorities in
canceling the appointment or not issuing appointment
order to the appellant on compassionate ground is
justified on the count that mother of the appellant is
working as Shiksha Karmi who is not government
servant still he is in gainful employment and it cannot
be held that appellant is having sudden financial or
pecuniary crisis, as such, the order of cancellation of
appointment is legal, justified and do not suffer from
perversity.
14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal,
submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and also considering the
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ
petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality,
irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting
interference by this Court.
15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid
of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.”
6
10. In the matter of “State of Chhattisgarh and Others v. Umesh
Thakur”, W.A. No. 236/2022, decided on 21-06-2023, the Hon’ble Full
Bench of this Court has considered that:-
“15. In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions
rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in
Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra), Kevra Bai Markandey’s case
(supra) and the reference answered by another
Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha
(supra) answering the issue involved in this reference
and in light of the principles of law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Parkash Chand’s case (supra) and
Nitin’s case (supra), compassionate appointment has
to be granted in accordance with the policy applicable
and where the policy applicable for compassionate
appointment clearly indicates that where one of the
family members of the deceased Government servant
is already in Government service then other members
of the family of the deceased Government servant
would not be entitled for compassionate appointment,
then the writ court in exercise of its power and
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India would not direct to hold for enquiry qua
dependency/financial support by one of the family
members of the deceased Government servant who is
already in Government service to the other family
members of the deceased Government servant when a
claim is made by another member of the family for
compassionate appointment, as it would amount to
rewording / revising the terms of the applicable policy
for compassionate appointment, which, in our
considered opinion, is wholly impermissible in law.
Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated question
as under: –
When one of the family members of the
deceased Government servant is already in
Government service and the applicable policy
bars and prohibits the consideration of other
dependent of the deceased Government servant
7for appointment on compassionate ground, then
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua
dependency/financial support by one of the
family members of the deceased Government
servant who is already in Government service to
the other family member of the deceased
Government servant when a claim is made by
other member of the family for compassionate
appointment, as it would amount to
rephrasing/rewording of the terms of the
applicable scheme/policy for compassionate
appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally
barred.”
11. Thus, applying the same analogy to the facts of the present case, since
the daughter of the deceased employee is already in government
employment, as per the policy of compassionate appointment of the
State Government, the petitioner cannot be given a compassionate
appointment. The policy of the State Government has been affirmed by
learned Single Judge of this Court in said writ appeal. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment, and his
application for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by
the respondent department.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
[ad_2]
Source link