PURENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties submit that as the issue relates to compassionate appointment, the matters may be heard and disposed of by this Bench.

(2.) In Writ Petition (S) No. 6689 of 2018, a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dtd. 12/1/2022, had observed that the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Sulochana Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (WPS No. 2278/2017, decided on 23/11/2017) requires reconsideration by a larger Bench in accordance with Rule 33 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 on the question formulated, which is as follows:

(3.) Facts, in a nutshell, WPS No. 6689/2018 are as follows: Chandrabhushan Sinha, father of the petitioner in WPS No. 6689/2018, while working as Assistant Grade-II in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, died-in-harness on 3/12/2017. He left behind his wife, the petitioner and another son, namely, Dinesh Kumar Sinha. The petitioner filed an application dtd. 2/1/2018 claiming compassionate appointment. The application was rejected by an order dtd. 14/9/2018 taking recourse to Clause 6A of the Circular No. F7-2012/1-3, Naya Raipur, dtd. 29/8/2016 of the General Administration Department, which stipulated that if any member of the family of the deceased government servant is already in government service, then any other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's brother - Dinesh Kumar Sinha is working under Indian Army on contractual basis. It is submitted in the writ petition that Dinesh Kumar Sinha was living separately from the petitioner's family.