Dismissed

Jeetin Dube v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Oct 2024WPS/1759/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following his mother's death in harness. The court dismissed the petition, holding that under Clause 6A of the Compassionate Appointment Instructions-2013, appointments cannot be granted if another family member is in government service. The court found no merit in directing an enquiry into financial dependency as it would amount to rewriting the pol

What the court decided

AI extract

Jeetin Dube Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 5

2024:CGHC:40629

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1759 of 2020

¶6

Jeetin Dube Son Of Late Usha Dube Aged About 30 Years R/o Vindhvasini Ward, Police Station Kotwali, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Director/ Commissioner Public Education Department, Directorate Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - District Education Officer Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Block Education Officer Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate For State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer

¶16

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

16/10/2024

¶19

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents

¶21

2 / 5

¶22

to consider the petitioner's representation for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in lieu of the death of his mother.

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and directed to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

¶24

10.3 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner was under employment with respondents as Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, she was promoted on the post of Upper Division Teacher. While working on the post of Upper Division Teacher, she died in harness on 10.08.2013. Petitioner, after death of his mother, has submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 23.09.2013 along with the other documents including consent letter of his brother. However, the application submitted by the petitioner was not considered and decided. Petitioner thereafter again submitted an application/representation on 05.01.2015 which was also not considered which made the petitioner to file writ petition bearing WPS No.1559 of 2015 which was disposed off with a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 therein to decide the application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment vide order dated 01.05.2015. Even after issuance of direction by the High Court respondents have not taken any decision which made the petitioner to file contempt petition bearing Contempt Case No.181/2020 which was disposed off reserving liberty with the petitioner to file writ petition and accordingly this writ petition is filed. He submits that

¶26

3 / 5

¶27

respondents be directed to consider claim of the petitioner at the earliest.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has not placed on record correct facts. After receipt of application submitted for compassionate appointment in the year 2013 it was processed and decision was taken on his application, and it was rejected. Intimation was forwarded to the Principal of concerned school as also copy forwarded to petitioner vide order dated 13.08.2014. Claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that one of the family member of the deceased- employee is already in government service taking note of Clause 6A of the Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment – 2013 (for short “ Consolidated Instructions of 2013 ”),

¶29

Upon putting a query to learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to whether any of the family member was under the government employment on the date of filing of application for grant of compassionate appointment, he fairly submits that as per his instructions at that time, father of the petitioner was in government service. However, he also died in the year 2024.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

¶31

In case of State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur (Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, decided on 21.06.2023), Full Bench of this Court while answering reference to the question “ when any dependent family member of deceased employee is already in Government service, in that circumstances whether any other member of the family would be deprived for employment on

¶32

4 / 5

¶33

compassionate ground, without consideration of dependency of family on such Government employee ” , taking note of the decisions rendered by Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors . (Writ Appeal No.334/2021 decided on 10.12.2021, State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey and Anr. (Writ Appeal No.91 of 2022, decided on 23.02.2022, reference answered by another Division Bench in case of Purendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (WPS No.6689 of 2018 decided on 12.01.2022) and in the light of principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh and Anr Vs. Prakash Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285 and Central Bank of India Vs. Nitin (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873), held as under :-

¶34

“ 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 for 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.”

¶35

Application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be

¶36

5 / 5

¶37

considered strictly in accordance with the guidelines framed by the State Govt. and the Courts would not rewrite the terms of the guidelines as it is in exclusive domain of State Government. In the case at hand, it is undisputed fact that on the date of submission of application for grant of compassionate appointment, father of the petitioner was in government employment and claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has already been rejected as early as in the year 2014.

¶38

For the foregoing discussions, in view of the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above and taking note of the relevant Clause of 6A of the Policy i.e. Compassionate Appointment Instructions-2013, amended in the year 2016, which clearly provides that compassionate appointment shall not be granted to the member of the family as categorized therein if any other member of the family is already in government employment, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The petitioner in writ petition has not pleaded all relevant facts necessary, in fact, it appears that he made an attempt to suppress the material fact of his father was in government service, his application was earlier rejected in the year 2014. But looking to the nature of relief, this Court is refraining from imposing cost on the petitioner.

¶39

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶41

Praveen

Jeetin Dube v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jeetin Dube v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Angaram Sagarvanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rameshwari Kaiwart Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Asharam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhanau Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh