Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 25174
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Yogendra Kumar Bhawar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 8858 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Parag Kotecha
For the Respondents: Rahul Tamaskar
Compassionate appointment may be denied if a family member is absorbed into government service subsequent to the application's rejection but during the proceedings, and such grants are considered inexpedient if there is a significant delay from the date of the employee's death.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Family member in government service - Whether the subsequent absorption of a family member as a government servant, shortly after the rejection of the application, justifies the denial of compassionate appointment. (Para 4, 5)
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Delay - Grant of appointment after a significant lapse of time from the date of the employee's death is considered inexpedient. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment given that the wife of the deceased employee was subsequently absorbed as a government servant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over eligibility for compassionate appointment based on whether a 'shiksha karmi' qualifies as a government servant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. subsequent government absorption of a family member and significant delay from the date of death justify denial of appointment. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. dismissal of the writ petition due to lack of merit. (Para 6) |
Order on Board
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the order Annexure P-3 dated 17- 5-2019, by which his application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the wife of the deceased Government servant is already working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, therefore, in view of the circular dated 29- 8-2016, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
2. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that Shiksha Karmi cannot be graded as Government servant, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment.
3. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, would oppose the writ petition and support the impugned order and submit that additional affidavit has been filed and the deceased Government servant’s wife has been absorbed in the School Education Department on the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) as Government servant with effect from 1-7- 2019 and, therefore, as on today, she is a Government servant, as such, the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rightly rejected.
4. Admittedly, on the date of consideration i.e. on 17-5-2019, the wife of the deceased Government servant was working as Shiksha Karmi and she cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, termed as Government servant, however, subsequently, with effect from 1-7-2019, she has been absorbed in the School Education Department as Government servant as per the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government and thus, as on today one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service. Therefore, the circular dated 29-8-2016 would be applicable and the subsequent event has to be considered by this Court and that has also to be taken into account.
5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 17-5-2019 (Annexure P-3) cannot be branded as illegal and bad in law, as immediately after consideration of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, within 1½ months, wife of the deceased Government servant has been absorbed as Government servant. The deceased Government servant died on 5-9-2016. At this stage, grant of compassionate appointment after ten years, would also be inexpedient.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
