Govardhan Das Mahilang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11335-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 163 of 2025

¶6

1 - Govardhan Das Mahilang S/o Late Shri Dayaluram Mahilang Aged About 39 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Ward No. 03, Indira Colony, Sonpuri Road, Balodabazar, Tahsil Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Headquarters, Block-7a, 2nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector - 24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Dy. Assistant General Manager (Administration) Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Headquarters, Block-7a, 2nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - District Manager Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - District Manager Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Collector District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

2

¶17

For appellant : Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶20

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07. 03.2025

¶21

1. Heard, Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State.

¶22

2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 07.01.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the WPS No. 8441/2024 with the following prayer:-

¶23

“I) Call for the records of WPS No. 8441 of 2024 and allow this appeal.

¶24

(ii) quash the impugned order dated 07/01/2025 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WPS No. 8441 of 2024.

¶25

(iii) Allow the reliefs as sought in WPS No. 8441 of 2024.

¶26

(iv) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper be also granted in favour of petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶27

3. Facts of the case in brief is that after the death of one Dayalu Ram Mahilang, father of the petitioner/ writ appellant, who was posted on the post of driver in the respondent corporation, his one son Ramcharan Mahilang was given compassionate appointment on the post of peon and after the death of late Ramcharan Mahilang, the petitioner/ writ appellant, being dependent on late Ramcharan Mahilang, had submitted the application for compassionate appointment on 19.02.2018 along with all relevant documents in the District Office of the Corporation, Kabirdham, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 05.05.2018 on the ground that the petitioner's younger brother namely Ikaleshwar Mahilang is a government

¶28

3

¶29

servant in C.G. Armed Forces, therefore, in view of policy of State Government, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner has made another application on 19.10.2024, whereby he has requested for reconsideration of his case for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground of his dependency on the deceased late Ramcharan Mahilang, but his representation has not been considered and decided. Then the petitioner/ writ appellant had filed WPS No. 8441/2024 before the learned Single Judge of this Court and vide order dated 07.01.2025, the learned Single Judge has passed its order and dismissed the same.

¶30

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eye of law. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered that brother of the petitioner/ writ appellant is posted in C.G. Armed Forces and is residing separately prior to date of death of his father and the authorities have also not considered this aspect properly and thereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and as such the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.

¶31

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference.

¶32

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record.

¶33

4

¶34

7. After appreciating the contentions advanced on behalf of the respective parties as well as considering the material available on record, learned Single Judge has found that application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the guidelines framed by the State Government and the Courts would not rewrite the terms of the guidelines as it is in exclusive domain of the State Government. As such, after applying Clause 6(A) of the Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment-2013 as well as Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Umesh Thakur 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 compassionate ground, without consideration of dependency of family on such Government employee" as also taking note of the decisions rendered by the Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.334/2021 decided on 10.12.2021, State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Kevra Bai Markandey and Anr. (Writ Appeal No.91 of 2022, decided on 23.02.2022 , as also reference answered by another Division Bench in case of Purendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (WPS No.6689 of 2018 decided on 12.01.2022) and further in the light of principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh and Anr v. Prakash Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285 and Central Bank of India Vs. Nitin (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873) , dismissed the writ petition by observing as under

¶35

"6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is daughter of the deceased employee who was working as Excise Constable and died in harness on 08.06.2023. Perusal of the impugned order would show that claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected in view of provision under Clause 6 (A) of the Consolidated Instructions

¶36

5

¶37

on Compassionate Appointment-2013 (for short "Consolidated Instructions of 2013"), which is reproduced as under:

¶38

"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 compassionate appointment. eligible for Explanation- Dependents of the family of deceased married and unmarried government servant shall include the following members:

¶39

A) In case of married government servant Dependent mother, dependent father, widow/widower, son and daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/divorced daughter) and daughter in law.

¶40

B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter)-dependent father, mother, brother and sister."

¶41

Perusal of the above provision clearly stipulates 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. From the pleading made in the writ petition it is clear that, brother of the petitioner is already in government employment and working on the post of Constable in Police Department is not disputed.

¶42

The issue as to whether this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is empowered to direct the State Government to hold an enquiry qua the dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant, who is already in Govt. service, to the dependent of the deceased government servant claiming compassionate appointment is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by this Court.

¶43

Application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the guidelines framed by the State Govt. Courts would not rewrite the terms of the guidelines as it is in exclusive domain of State Government.

¶44

In the case of State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur Full Bench of this Court while answering reference to

¶45

6

¶46

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 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:-

¶47

"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."

¶48

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 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

¶49

7

¶50

do not find any error in rejecting the application filed by petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶51

There is no merit in the writ petition which is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed"

¶52

8. From perusal of the impugned order dated 07-01-2025 passed in WPS No.8441 of 2024, it transpires that the learned Single Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the guidelines as also the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as also Full Bench judgment of this High Court and taking into account the 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, has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

¶53

9. In view of the above, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶54

10. In the result, there is no merit in the writ appeal, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶55

Sd/Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶56

Sagrika

¶57

Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date:2025.03.13 11:51:14 +0530

Govardhan Das Mahilang v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govardhan Das Mahilang v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gayalal Sharma (Dead) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Radheshyam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mo. Meraj Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Pankaj Loniya

Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Umariya Vs Lalaram Chandrakar

H.R. Yadav ( Petitioner in Person) Vs Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs