Smt. Sapna Bisen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11958

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 601 of 2021

¶6

Smt. Sapna Bisen D/o Late Bhojraj Patle Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 3, Piyush Colony, Amlidih, Thana- New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner (s)

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya Through Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Topi Lal Bareth, Panel Lawyer For Resident No. 3 : Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, Advocate

¶13

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.01 16:23:20 +0530

¶14

2

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

11/03/2025

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 22.05.2019 issued by respondent No.3 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the count that one of the petitioner’s family members is in government job.

¶19

Facts of the case in brief are that the father of the petitioner Late Bhojraj Patle was working as field Extension Officer with respondent No.3 and he died in harness on 24.09.2018. After death of petitioner’s father, the widow of deceased submitted an application for compassionate appointment before the respondent No.3 due to her ill health, she proposed name of her youngest daughter Smt. Sapna Bisen for appointment. The application was forwarded wherein all the members have accorded consent for giving the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The application was entertained by the respondent and after due consideration it was found that the petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment but she may not be offered class-III posts, as such the post of Class-III is not available. The respondent sought her consent for the post of Class-IV for her appointment on compassionate ground which was not granted to the petitioner and it has been rejected by the respondent by invoking amended compassionate appointments’ circular vide circular No. F 7-1/2012/1-3 dated 29.08.2016 wherein it has been mentioned that if any of the family members of the deceased employee is serving the State Government than any other family members would not be entitled for compassionate appointment vide order dated 22.05.2019.

¶20

3

¶21

It is also case of the petitioner that one of her sister Smt. Anju Raghandale is serving as Laboratory Technician with respondent No.3 and she is married and living separately with her own family, therefore, she cannot be included in the list of dependents of family members. Similarly, the other sister is not doing any government job and would pray for quashing of the order and would pray for issuance of direction to the respondent to grant compassionate appointment to her.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted written synopsis wherein he has raised contention in the oral submission and in the pleadings made in the writ petition.

¶23

On the other hand learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that one of the family members of the petitioner is in government job, therefore, as per amended circular 2016 the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. The relevant clause of consolidated policy/circular 6-A is extracted below;-

¶24

[6-अ. दि�वंगतदिववादि�तशासकीयसेवककेपरि�वा�मेंयदि�पूव�से�ीपरि�वा�काकोईअन्य स�स्यशासकीयसेवामें�ै, तोपरि�वा�केअन्यदिकसीभीस�स्यकोअनुकम्पादिनयुदि! कीपा्ቔता न�ीं�ोगी।]

¶25

[ स्प्ቖीक�ण. - दि�वंगतदिववादि�तएवंअदिववादि�तशासकीयसेवकोंकेपरि�वा�केआቦኌ+तस�स्यमें दिनम्नलि-लि.तस�स्यशादिम- �ोंगे :-

¶26

(अ) दिववादि�तशासकीयसेवककेमाम-ेमें - आቦኌ+तमाता, दिपता, दिवधवापत्नी/दिवधु�पतित, पु्ቔ एवंपु्ቔी (इनमें�्ቈकपु्ቔ /पु्ቔी, दिवधवा/त-ाकशु�ापु्ቔीशादिम- �ैं) तथापु्ቔवधु। (ब) अदिववादि�तशासकीयसेवक (अथवादिवधु�जि8सकेकोईपु्ቔ /पु्ቔीन�ीं�ै) केमाम-ेमें- आቦኌ+त माता, दिपता, भाईएवंब�न।] and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶28

4

¶29

This issue raised in this petition that whether one of the dependent of deceased Government servant is in government job then other family members are entitled to get compassionate appointment or not.

¶30

This issue has come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court wherein the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022 vide order dated 07.07.2023 has passed the following order which is as under:-

¶31

A careful perusal of the order passed by the full Bench would show that the full Bench of this Court has clearly held that no such inquiry can be made qua the dependency / financial support by one of the family members of the deceased who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased who has made the application for compassionate appointment. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain and accordingly, set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent herein would stand dismissed.

¶32

Thereafter the matter was referred to the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble full Bench vide order dated 21-06-2023 has passed the following order which is as under:-

¶33

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

¶34

5

¶35

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: -

¶36

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.

¶37

Since Hon’ble Full Bench and Division Bench of this Court have already examined the issue and held that if one of the family members is in Government Service, the other member is not entitled to get compassionate

¶38

6

¶39

appointment, even no enquiry is required to be conducted. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench, the instant writ petition sans merit and is dismissed. No order as to the cost.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶42

Santosh

Smt. Sapna Bisen v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sapna Bisen 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

Dainik Bhaskar Vs Neeraj Jain

Nageshwar Prasad Kaushik Vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board

B. L. Gangwani Vs C. Yajulu Rao

B.L Gangwani Vs C. Yajulu Rao

Firoj Khan Vs Bunty @ Rajesh Varndani

Laxminarayan Gayakwad Vs State of Chhattisgarh