SANAD KUMAR SHYAMLE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 1/10/2021 by which respondent No.4 rejected petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that father of petitioner, namely Gajadhar Prasad Shyamale, who was working as Assistant Grade-III in the School Education Department, died in harness on 22/10/2019. On 1/10/2020 petitioner submitted application for grant of compassionate appointment. The Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Nagarda conducted an enquiry and submitted report that two elder brothers of petitioner are in government service but both are residing separately with their respective family. Based on said report, respondent No.3 vide order dtd. 2/9/2020 (Annexure P-4) rejected petitioner's application for compassionate appointment referring to Clause 6A of the Circular dtd. 23/2/2019, according to which, if any family member of deceased employee is in government service, other members of family are not entitled to compassionate appointment. Aggrieved therewith, petitioner preferred writ petition bearing WPS No.407/2021. Learned Single Judge recording that no enquiry as to dependency of petitioner was conducted, allowed writ petition, set aside order dtd. 2/9/2020 and directed respondents to consider claim of petitioner afresh. Failure to comply with the Court's direction led the petitioner to file contempt petition also impleading respondent No.4 herein. However, during pendency of contempt petition, respondent No.4 rejected claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that his elder brothers are already working in government service and therefore, as per policy of compassionate appointment, he is not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. He submits that petitioner was fully dependent on deceased employee. Elder brothers of petitioner have stated on affidavit, which are filed along with petition, that they are residing separately with their family and they are not maintaining petitioner. Respondent No.4 ignoring aforesaid aspect of the matter, erroneously rejected application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

(3.) Learned State Counsel opposing submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that as per enquiry report submitted on petitioner's application, two elder brothers of petitioners are already in government service. Clause 6A of Circular dtd. 23/2/2019 dis-entitles an applicant from securing compassionate appointment, if any other member of family is in government service. He submits that no obligation is cast upon the government under the relevant compassionate appointment scheme to find out as to whether the family member of deceased, who is in government service, is providing any financial assistance to other members of family of deceased employee. Hence, the order impugned passed by respondent No.4 does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction by this Court.