The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility for compassionate appointment is determined based on the provisions of the Consolidated Revised Instructions on Compassionate Appointment, 2013, and the related rules, emphasizing the definition of family and the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment.

JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 5066 of 2021, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 07.11.2020, by which the appellants had rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment on the death of her husband, namely, Udipto Mukharjee, who died in harness while working as Assistant Grade-III under the respondent No. 3, on 03.08.2020, on the ground that the mother-in-law of the writ petitioner was in government employment.

3. The wife of the deceased government employee, who is a writ petitioner, is only 27 years of age and her husband died at the young age of 31 years.

4. Mr. Ahluwalia submits that the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge that the mother-in-law of the writ petitioner cannot be brought within the ambit of family for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment cannot be sustained in view of the provisions contained in the Consolidated Revised Instructions on Compassionate Appointment, 2013 (for short, ‘Scheme’), which is the scheme of compassionate appointment holding the field. Mr. Ahluwalia contends that it is manifestly clear that clause 6A of the Scheme disentitles a member of the family of the deceased married government servant, if any other member of the family is already in government service. Adverting to the explanation to clause 6A, it is submitted that the mother of the married government servant is considered to be a member of the family of the deceased, and therefore, the view taken while rejecting the application for compassionate appointment submitted by the writ petitioner, cannot be faulted with.

5. Mr. Ahluwalia submits that as family is not defined under the Scheme, the definition of family as provided in Rule 44 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, Pension Rules), which provides that family in relation to a government servant means, amongst others, mother, whose personal law permits adoption may be considered. Mr. Ahluwalia also submits that Rule 2(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (for short, Conduct Rules) provides, amongst others, that any person related by blood or marriage is a member of the family in relation to a government servant, and in that view, mother of the diseased married government servant would come within the ambit of family.

6. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner relies on the impugned order to contend that no case is made out for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge in this appeal.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

8. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would go to show that the learned Single Judge did not advert to the provisions of Scheme of compassionate appointment. However, the learned Single Judge opined that family would consist of the husband, wife and their children and on that premise, it was observed at paragraph 5 as follows:

“5. By no stretch of imagination the mother-in-law of petitioner or for that matter the mother of the deceased can be brought within the ambit of family for the purpose of determining the dependency part neither does the policy for compassionate appointment framed by the State Govt. envisage that mother and father of the deceased would also be considered for the purpose of determining the dependency. In the absence of which it has to be implied that by the term family, it would be the deceased, his wife and children. Within the said family there is nobody in government employment and therefore the interpretation given by the respondents in rejecting the application for compassionate appointment does