ANNU PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dtd. 23/9/2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No. 2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground owing to the sad demise of her father-in-law, namely, Ram Sanehi Pandey has been rejected.

(2.) From perusal of the record, it appears that the father in law of the petitioner namely, Shri Ram Sanehi Pandey, who was working as constable at Police Line, Bilaspur died in harness on 15/9/2020. Said Ram Sanehi Pandey had two sons namely, Abhishek Pandey and Ashutosh Pandey but both have also died pre-deceased to him. It appears further that the younger son of deceased Ram Sanehi Pandey, namely, Abhishek Pandey was posted as constable and died on 18/6/2019 and thereafter his wife Smt. Mistri Pandey was given appointment on compassionate ground on 30/7/2020 and, according to the Petitioner, she is living separately and not assisting the family of the petitioner. Further contention of the petitioner is that her husband was pre-deceased to her father-in-law namely, Ram Sanehi Pandey and, therefore, immediately upon the death of her father in law, she applied for her appointment on compassionate ground on 12/7/2021, but was, however, rejected by the concerned Authority on the ground that the widow of the petitioner's husband's brother namely Smt. Mistri Pandey was already in government job and as per the policy of compassionate appointment, the claim for compassionate appointment would not be considered if there is already somebody who is in government employment in the family of the claimants. While observing as such the petitioner's application seeking her appointment on compassionate ground has been refused which has been questioned herein mainly on the ground that the order impugned has been passed without considering her dependency upon her father-in-law, therefore, it is contended by Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the order impugned deserves to be set aside. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Sanath Kumar Shyamale v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed on 09.02.2021 in WPS No. 407 of 2021.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Pradhan, while supporting the order impugned submits that since one of the members, namely, Smt. Mistri, widow of petitioner's husband's brother was already in government job, the order impugned, therefore, does not require to be interfered, as per the Government Policy.