Sameer Thawait Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2026:CGHC:16658

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3208 of 2022

¶7

1 - Sameer Thawait S/o Late Shri Bhim Prasad Thawait, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Ram Mandir Chowk, Khokhra, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattigarh.

¶8

2 - Smt. Kirti Bai Thawait, Late Shri Bhim Prasad Thawait, Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Ram Mandir Chowk, Khokhra, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - District, Department Of Health, Mantralaya, Indreawati Bhawan, 2rd Floor, Atla Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Sipat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur.

¶14

4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre Pamgarh, Tahsil District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Banjara, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

10/04/2026

2

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or writs/order or orders quashing the impugned order dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure-P/1) being arbitrary, illegal and against the law.

¶24

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or writs/order or orders directing the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner after conducting proper enquiry with respect to dependency part of the petitioner on his brother.

¶25

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. ”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, namely Late Shri Bhim Prasad Thawait, was working on the post of Assistant Grade-2 at Community Health Centre, District JanjgirChampa. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 22.01.2022. Petitioner No. 2 is the wife of Late Shri Bhim Prasad Thawait, who was dependent on her husband. He would further submit that late Shri Bhim Prasad left behind his wife Smt. Kirti Bai and four children, namely Sameer Thawait (son), Vikram Thawait (son), Anjali Thawait (daughter), and Rajani Thawait (daughter). The eldest son, Vikram Thawait, has been working as a Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) at Sub-Health Centre, Ghutiya, under Community Health Centre, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa since 04.01.2014. Vikram Thawait is married and has been living separately from

¶27

3

¶28

the family even prior to the death of his father. The daughters are also married and living separately with their husbands.

¶29

He would contend that the petitioner No.1 made an application for compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities and same has been rejected on the basis of the circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the General Administration Department vide impugned order dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure-P/1) by respondent No. 4 on the ground that, as per Clause 6A of the policy, if any family member is already in government service, the petitioner would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. He would also contend that while passing the impugned order, no proper enquiry was conducted with respect to the dependency of the petitioner; thus, he would pray that the petition may be allowed.

¶30

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member of the deceased government servant is already employed in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. The State counsel further relies on the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the policy does not envisage any inquiry into the financial condition of other family members, and eligibility has to be decided strictly as per the policy.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file.

¶32

In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate appointments, has clearly held that if any member of the family of a deceased government servant is already in government service, no other member of the family is eligible for a compassionate appointment. Further an inquiry into the financial condition of

¶33

4

¶34

dependents is not envisaged in the policy, therefore, no such direction can be issued. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below:

¶35

"13. Clause 6A of the Scheme reads as follows: "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 eligible for compassionate appointment. Explanation. Dependents of the family of deceased married and unmarried government servant shall include the following members: A) In case of married government servant - Dependent mother, dependent parents, widow/widower, son and daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) mother, brother and sister."

¶36

15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would go to show that it does not envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. "

¶37

5

¶38

In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that his brother is living separately and is not providing financial assistance to him and his widowed mother cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy.

¶39

Admittedly, the petitioner’s brother, namely Vikram Thawait, is already in government service, which is not in dispute. Clause 6A in the compassionate appointment policy was inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said circular in the present petition.

¶40

It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the policy in force.

¶41

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure P/1).

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Nadim

Sameer Thawait v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Thawait 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

Bhijram Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. G. Vijay Nirmala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bimlesh Tripathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishwanath Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandraprakash Dande Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Karishma Patel Vs the State of Chhattisgarh