Disposed

Rahim Ansari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jan 2025WPS/322/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim due to lack of qualifications. The Court noted unavailability of posts and a pending government committee decision, directing the committee to resolve the dispute within 60 days and allowing the respondent to consider the petitioner for a Class IV post.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the committee constituted on 13.09.2021 to resolve the dispute within 60 days; direction to respondents to take a decision regarding appointment in a Class IV post.

Rahim Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.06 11:43:35 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:4104

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 322 of 2025

¶7

1 - Rahim Ansari S/o Idris Mohammad Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Datima, Post Karanji, Police Station Vishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Director Directorate, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Director Public Instructions, School Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 7 - Zila Panchayat Surajpur Through Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 8 - District Education Officer Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 9 - Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyathan Through Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.) 10 - Block Education Officer Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner : Shri CJK Rao, Advocate For State : Shri Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

22/01/2025

1. In this petition, claim of the petitioner with regard to compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification of B.Ed./D.Ed. and TET for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III.

¶19

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). She was appointed on 30.10.2009. He further submitted that the petitioner moved applications for the grant of compassionate appointment according to policy contemplated in the C.G. Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2012"). He also submitted that the claim of the petitioner has not been considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 2012. He further contended that the petitioner is ready to join services against Class IV post. In the rules also there is no provision that the dependant of the deceased Shiksha Karmis would be granted appointment only on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, therefore, the decision taken by the State authorities that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III is erroneous and contrary to the rules. He also contended that the services of the petitioner were not absorbed in the School Education Department and this is one of the reasons for the non-consideration of their names. It is further stated that a committee was constituted by the State Government vide Order dated 13.09.2021 to resolve the dispute with regard to the compassionate appointment of Shiksha Karmis, who died prior to the date of absorption. It is argued that no decision has been taken by the

¶20

¶21

committee till date. He further stated that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner.

¶22

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted that the claim of the petitioner has already been rejected by the State/respondents, but, those orders have not been challenged. They further submitted that the deceased employee died prior to the date of absorption of her services and a circular was issued by the State Government to the effect that the Shiksha Karmis who died prior to the date of absorption, their dependents would get employment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, particularly, the dependents, who have passed B.Ed./D.Ed and TET. He also submitted that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualifications, therefore, his claim has not been considered. It is contended that the petitioner was granted opportunity to acquire the required qualification, but, he failed and, therefore, his claim was rejected. It is further contended that there is no provision to provide employment on any other post. It is stated that according to Rule 7 of the Rules, 2012, the dependents may be provided compassionate appointment on the post of Teacher (Panchayat) only, as the sanctioned cadre was Shiksha Karmi Grade I, II, & III only. He contended that as the minimum required qualification for a Teacher is 12th, D.Ed., TET or Graduation, B.Ed and TET, therefore, the dependents cannot be appointed against any other post and no such posts are available with the department. He further argued that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶24

¶25

5. The wife of the petitioner died prior to the date of absorption of her services. Her dependent moved applications for compassionate appointment. The claim of the petitioner has not been considered on the ground that he does not have the requisite qualifications.

¶26

6. The services of all Teachers (Panchayat) were absorbed with the School Education Department pursuant to a notification issued on 30.06.2018 and at present posts of Shiksha Karmis are not available in the department. The petitioner has not acquired the required qualifications for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade I, II, and III and, therefore, he has not been provided compassionate appointment, but, the fact remains that the posts of Shiksha Karmis are not available with the department; therefore, no such appointment can be provided to the petitioner, even he has the requisite qualification.

¶27

7. Looking to the facts discussed above, a decision was taken by the State Government and a committee was constituted by the General Administration Department on 13.09.2021 to resolve the dispute. It appears that till date no decision has been taken; therefore, at this juncture, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the committee constituted on 13.09.2021, to resolve the dispute involved in the petition within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

8. The respondents authorities may take appropriate decision with regard to the appointment of the petitioner in Class IV post.

¶29

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶32

Gopal Singh

Rahim Ansari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahim Ansari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tulsidas Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jayanarayan Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devidas Rajurkar Vs Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation

Ganesh Prasad Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwat Prasad Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Chandrakanta Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh