SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Deenanath Tiwari, S/o. Late Shri Ramadhar Tiwari - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police and Ors. – Respondents
WPS No. 1184 of 2022, WPS No. 1515 of 2019, WPS No. 1565 of 2022
Decided On : 23-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Mr. Abhishek Pandey and Ms. Durga Mehar, Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Adv. and Ms. Supriya Upasne, Dy. Govt. Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment is not a right but an exception, contingent on financial need, and family members working as Shikshakarmi do not qualify as government servants.

Headnote:

(A) Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Section 70 - Compassionate appointment - Petitioners challenged rejection of claims for compassionate appointment on grounds of family members in government service - Court held that Shikshakarmi are not government servants and thus, petitioners are not entitled to compassionate appointment. (Paras 14-20)

(B) Compassionate appointment - It is an exception to the general rule of employment and not a right; must be based on financial need at the time of the employee's death. (Paras 17-19)

Facts of the case:

Petitioners sought compassionate appointments after the death of their family members who were government employees. Their claims were rejected based on the policy that disallows such appointments if a family member is already in government service.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the petitioners' family members, being Shikshakarmi, do not qualify as government servants under the relevant rules, thus justifying the rejection of their claims.

Issues: Whether Shikshakarmi are considered government servants and if the rejection of compassionate appointment was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that Shikshakarmi are not government servants and that compassionate appointments are contingent upon financial need, which was not established in this case.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

ORDER :

(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) :

1) Since an identical issue is involved in bunch of these cases, they are heard analogously and are being disposed off by this common order.

2) The petitioners by way of these writ petitions are challenging rejection of claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that one of the family members is in Government Service, in fact they are working as Shikshakarmi.

WPS No. 1184 of 2022

3) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner – Deenanath Tiwari are that father of the petitioner Late Ramadhar Tiwari who was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department died in harness on 20.8.2007. The wife of the deceased i.e. mother of the petitioner moved an application on 9.10.2007 as also on 4.12.2007 for granting compassionate appointment to her younger son i.e. the petitioner before respondent No.5/SP, Bilaspur. However, by the impugned order dated 31.8.2012 respondent No.3/Assistant Inspector General of Police (Selection), PHQ, Raipur has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that his elder brother namely Kedar Nath Tiwari is already working on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III. Against that order, the petitioner along with his mother has preferred a writ petition i.e. WPS No.5906/2014 before this Court which has been disposed of by this Court on 16.7.2021 with a direction to the respondents to verify the dependency part of the petitioner and if it is found true that other family members are not giving any financial help or support to the petitioner and his sisters, then give him compassionate appointment in police department. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondent authorities and thereafter, on 28.10.2021 respondent No.3/Assistant Inspector General of Police (Welfare), PHQ, Raipur rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the same ground that his elder brother Kedar Nath Tiwari is working on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III in Government Primary School, Semra, Block-Kota, Distt. Bilaspur.

WPS No. 1515 of 2019

4) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner – Yash Kumar Mishra are that father of the petitioner was working as Lecturer in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Manendragarh, Dist. Korea. He died on 2/2/2018 in harness by leaving the family members including the petitioner. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was continuing his studies in B.E. in Shankara Group of Institute, Bhilai, but looking to the financial status of the family, as the father of the petitioner was suffering from Brain Cancer and whopping hard earned saving money of the family was used for treatment and even the old ailing grand parents are also staying with the petitioner, he left the studies in mid and moved an application on 13/3/2018 before the respondent No.5 seeking compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father. Along with the application, the petitioner submitted affidavit, educational qualification certificates, etc. It is submitted that at the time of submission of application by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, the petitioner's mother Smt. Sunita Mishra was working as Lecturer (Panchayat) and the said information was also given by the petitioner in his application. It is submitted that on the basis of application submitted by the petitioner and after due scrutiny of the same, on 10/8/2018 the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on the post of Grade III Clerk and posted at Higher Secondary School, Chittajhor Podi, Baikunthpur, District Korea. In compliance of the said order of appointment, the petitioner joined his services on 13/8/2018. The petitioner's mother was working as Lecturer (Panchayat) under the Zila Panchayat. Subsequently on 29/9/2018 the services of the mother of the petitioner were merged in the Department of School Education by naming the post as Teac

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top