Vikas Sonboir Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh; 2 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh;

¶10

3 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

			Respondents
For Petitioner	: Shri Vinod Kumar	Sharma,	Advocate.
For Respondents/State	: Shri Rajkumar	Gupta,	Addl. Advocate
	General.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

07/01/2026

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief :

¶16

(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P-1 and direct the respondent authority to consider and grant compassionate appointment as per judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.S. No. 407/2021 within stipulated period, in the interest of justice;

¶17

(ii ) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.

¶18

Facts which emerges from the petition is that the father of the petitioner late

¶19

Shri Onkar Lal Sonboir who was posted as Upper Division Teacher, at Govt.

¶20

-2-

¶21

Middle School Khairi, Block Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, and he died in harness on 11.04.2021 leaving behind widow wife Smt. Neera Sonboir and two sons petitioner and Dipendra Sonboir. That, the petitioner who is son of the deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment on 27.05.2021 but the same was rejected only on the ground that his brother Dipendra Sonboir is Class-IV employee in Veterinary department. That, the brother of the petitioner Dipendra Sonboir who is posted at Jalbandha is already married and living separately with his family and he he is not giving any financial Assistance to the family of the deceased.

¶22

This Hon'ble Court in W.P.S. No. 407/2021 has considered the similar issue and observed that merely because one of family member is in Govt. job application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejec and in such case, proper enquiry has to be made that the earning member is providing a financial assistance to the dependent family such member is living separately, but in t case, brother who is Govt. job is living separat and not providing any financial assistance but then also in the respondent no. 2 has rejected the application. Hence this petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner was posted as Upper Division Teacher, at Govt. Middle School Khairi, Block Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon and he died on harness on 11.04.2021, Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for grant of companssionate appoinment to the respondents. The application of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 30/01/2021 (Annexure P/1). Challengin, the same this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is on the ground that the brother of the petitioner was working as Class-IV employee with the State Government, thus Compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the petitioner. He submits that the brother of the petitioner though working as Class-IV employee with the respopndents, however he is residing separetly, the impugned order is bad in law.

¶24

-3-

¶25

Learned counsel for the State opposing the submission and submits that the compassionate appointment is made in accordance with the Policy framing by the State Government in this regard. As per the Policy for compassionate appointment issued in the year 2013 amended from time to time, if any member of the family of the deceased is in the Government, the other family members would not be entitle for compassionate appointment. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Cort in case of State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey in W.A. No. 91/2022 dated 23/02/2022 .

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record appended.

¶27

There is no disputee to the fact that the petitioenr’s father was working with the respondents and died in harness and it is also not in dispute that the brother of the deceased is working as Class-IV employee witht he respondent. Impugned order indicates that as per Clause - 6 of the Policy for compassionate appointment of the year-2013 amended from time to time, if any member of the family of the deceased in Governemtn service, the other member are not entitled for compassionate. This issue has arisen before this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (Supra) and this Court has observed thus in parragraph-8 as under :-

¶28

“8. The relevant scheme for compassionate appointment is contained in Consolidated Revised Instructions on Compassionate Appointment, 2013 (for short, ‘Scheme’). In WA No. 33 of 2022 decided on 18.02.2022 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee) , this Court analyzed the provisions contained under Clauses 5 and 6A of the Scheme and recorded as follows at paragraphs 15 & 16 :

¶29

“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

¶30

-4-

¶31

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.

¶32

16. Explanation to clause 6A does not in any way relate to family of the deceased married government servant. What is the relevance of the explanation is also not discernible inasmuch as when the scheme had excluded dependent parents for being considered for compassionate appointment, there is no purpose in describing who are the dependents of the deceased married government servant.”

¶33

As the brother of the deceased is working as Government Employee, this

¶34

Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order. Thus writ petition fails and dismissed.

¶35

Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶36

Ashish

Vikas Sonboir v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Sonboir 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

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Neelu Agrawal

Ashish Kumar Vs Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company

Bharat Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs Gopal Shaha

Smt. Praveen Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh