HARI PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order/letter dated 10-08-2021 (Annexure P-3) issued from the office of Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground owing to the sad demise of his father, namely, Sukhi Ram Yadav, has been rejected.

(2.) From perusal of the record, it appears that the father of the petitioner namely, Sukhi Ram Yadav, who was working as Peon in the office of respondent No. 4-Government College, Bhaisma, died in harness on 08-09-2020 and immediately after the sad demise of father, the petitioner has moved an application on 23-10-2020 (Annexure P-1) seeking compassionate appointment. According to the petitioner, since he and other family members were completely dependent upon his father, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. However, the said application has been rejected by the concerned authority, while referring to Clause 6-A of the Circulars dated 14-06-2013 and 23-02-2019, whereby it has been provided that if one of the members of the deceased employee is in government job, then, in the said condition, the other family members would not be entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. The claim has, thus, been rejected merely by referring to the said clause. The order impugned has been questioned by the petitioner mainly on the ground that it has been passed without considering his dependency upon the father. It is, therefore, contended by Shri Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the order impugned deserves to be set aside and, in support, has placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Sanad Kumar Shyamale v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others decided on 09-02-2021 in WPS No. 407/2021.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Jangde, learned State counsel, while supporting the order impugned, submits that according to the aforesaid circular, particularly in view of Clause 6-A, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been refused and therefore, the order impugned, does not require to be interfered.