Pramod Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.08 17:50:58 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:16053

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4392 of 2021

¶7

Pramod Mishra S/o Late Shri Suresh Kumar Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Near New Talab , In Front Of Singhal Kirana Store, Gudhiyari, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur , Police Station And Post Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Raipur, Near Mahanadi Bhavan , Mantralaya , Police Station And Post Rakhi New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.) Office Of Inspector General Of Police (IGP) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4. Superintendent Of Police (Railway) Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Railway Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

08.04.2026

¶18

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶19

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to call for the entire record.

¶20

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may Kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to

¶21

2

¶22

consider the grievance of the petitioner by giving compassionate appointment in Grade III/Constable to the present petitioner in place of his father by considering the notification dated 14/06/2013 were relaxation has been provided by the Authority in providing compassionate appointment.

¶23

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner,

¶25

namely, Suresh Kumar Mishra was a Constable (GD) under the respondents, who died in harness on 04.02.2011. He would contend that an application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that two members of family of the petitioner are already in Government service. He would submit that the petitioner preferred WPS No. 7039 of 2016 and vide order dated 24.11.2017 a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to hold factual enquiry to determine whether financial assistance is being provided to the petitioner or the mother of the petitioner by Government servant or not. He would contend that the petitioner is residing separately along with his mother, and brothers who are Government servant, never supporting the petitioner financially. He would submit that enquiry was conducted and it was found that his brothers are not supporting him financially, but again the application for grant of compassionate has been rejected. He would pray to set-aside the order dated 25.11.2020.

¶26

On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey appearing for the State would submit that according to Clause 3(8) of the policy for compassionate appointment, if any family member of the deceased government servant is already in

¶27

3

¶28

Government service, other dependents would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. He would further submit that the petitioner is ineligible for the post of Constable as he has made a representation before the respondent authorities for exemption of 2 cm height. 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 categorically held that the policy does not envisage any inquiry into the financial condition of other family members, and eligibility is to be strictly decided as per the terms of the policy.

¶29

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

¶30

5. Perusal of order dated 25.11.2020 (Annexure P/1) would show that two brothers of the petitioner are government employee and Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Muniya Bai (supra) 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 dependents is not envisaged in the policy. Therefore, no such direction can be issued. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below:-

¶31

"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,

¶32

4

¶33

widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) mother, brother and sister."

¶34

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."

¶35

In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that brothers of the petitioner does not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 3(8) of the policy.

¶36

7. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court has passed judgment dated 21-6-2023 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur in Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, and has observed in paragraph no. 15 which read as

¶37

under:-

¶38

“ 15. 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

¶39

5

¶40

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 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: -

¶41

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.

¶42

It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for compassionate

¶43

appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the policy in force.

¶44

6

¶45

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶48

$iddhant

Pramod Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Mishra 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

M/S. Budhia Auto Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aakash Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nehru Lal Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S. Budhia Auto, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gajendra Prasad Jaiswal Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Himanshu Agro Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner