Apresh Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of School Education, Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Director, Public Instruction Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Principal Government Higher Secondary School Nagar Block Baikunthpur Disrtict- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner :- Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate. For State-Respondent(s) :- Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia & Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyers.

¶18

2

¶19

WPS No. 2796 of 2019

¶20

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶21

Order On Board

¶22

06.01.2026

¶23

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh by which the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III has been revoked holding that he was not entitled for the compassionate appointment.

¶24

The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following backdrop:-

¶25

2.1. Petitioner’s father Anoop Kujur while working on the Government post (Assistant Teacher) died in harness on 06.12.2007. However, the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Grade – III vide appointment order dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure P/4). Later on, it was came to the knowledge of the District Education Officer, Baikunthpur that petitioner’s mother Hemlata Kujur was already in the Government Job as on 31.08.2016 and, therefore, in light of Circular/Policy dated 29.08.2016, the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment and accordingly, his appointment was

¶26

3

¶27

WPS No. 2796 of 2019

¶28

revoked, which is sought to be challenged in the instant writ petition.

¶29

Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, ought to have considered the case of the petitioner as per the policy applicable on the date of death of his father i.e. 06.12.2007, and there was no such clause that if one member of the family is already in the Government Service, the other member will not be entitled for the compassionate appointment, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

¶30

Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia and Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsels, would submit that the law in this regard has now been well settled by decision of Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and

¶31

others1 , in which their Lordships have held that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment which has further been followed in the matter of

¶32

State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Abhishek Kumar2 , therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

1 (2020) 7 SCC 617

¶34

2 (2024) 5 SCC 280

¶35

4

¶36

WPS No. 2796 of 2019

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely.

¶38

It is not in dispute that petitioner’s father Anoop Kujur died in harness on 06.12.2007; the petitioner’s case was considered on 31.08.2016 and he was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Grade – III. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s mother Hemlata Kujur was already in the Government Service as on 31.08.2016 and posted as Head Master in the Government School. However, the Policy dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure R/4) clearly bars the compassionate appointment if any family member is already in Government Service and, therefore, compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been revoked by the Competent Authority. The point raised by the petitioner that his application for compassionate appointment should be considered as per the policy applicable on the date of death of his father i.e. 06.12.2007, is no longer in dispute and decided by Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of N.C. Santhosh (supra) in which their Lordships have clearly held that the application for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application and observed as under:-

¶39

5

¶40

WPS No. 2796 of 2019

¶41

“19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the abovecited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependant of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.”

¶42

The principles of law laid down in the matter of N.C. Santhosh (supra) was followed in the matter of Abhishek Kumar (supra) in which their Lordships have set aside the order granting compassionate appointment applying the norms applicable on the date of death of the Government employee while considering the application of compassionate appointment by holding at para 8 as under:-

¶43

“8. The consideration of the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment under the 2019 policy applicable at the time of consideration of the application is consistent with the above ratio in N.C. Santhosh (supra) . The fresh consideration made on 16-10-2023, also resulted in rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment but the same was considered under the policy prevalent at the time of the death of the respondent's father on 14-9-2017. Such consideration is found to be made by wrongly

¶44

6

¶45

WPS No. 2796 of 2019

¶46

applying the earlier norms without adherence to the ratio in N.C. Santhosh (supra) . As noticed the impugned decision³ of the High Court is contrary to the law laid down by the three-Judge Bench of this Court. The same is accordingly set aside.

¶47

In view of the above, there is no iota of doubt that the petitioner’s case has rightly been considered as per Policy dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure R/4) applicable on the date of consideration of petitioner’s application, in which it is clearly held that if one member of the family is already in the Government Service, the other member is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Since the petitioner’s mother Hemlata Kujur was in the Government Service, posted as Head Master in the Government School, on 31.08.2016, which is the date of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment as per Policy dated 29.08.2016. As such, the appointment has rightly been revoked by the Competent Authority/District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. I do not find any merit in the instant petition, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶48

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶49

Ankit

¶50

3 Abhishek Kumar v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 6822

Apresh Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apresh Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bhumika Shau Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Miss Priya Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravindra Aankari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neha Dadsena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. K. Ratnamma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Kumar Dakha Vs Vivek Kumar Gupta