AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 17/06/2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the sister of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Varsha Kunjam is in government service.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father, Late Shri Prem Singh Kunjam, who was serving as Sub-Forest Ranger, Grade-III, died in harness on 17.05.2018, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 03.08.2018. He submits that despite submission of the requisite consent letters and directions issued by this Court in WPS No.1784/2026, the petitioner’s claim was rejected vide impugned order dated 17.06.2026 on the ground that his sister is in Government service. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is contrary to the circular dated 14.06.2013, as the service of the petitioner’s sister as Lecturer Panchayat is not to be treated as Government service for the purpose of compassionate appointment, and she is also residing separately with her husband. He, therefore, prays for quashment of the impugned order and consideration of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected vide order dated 17.06.2026, as the petitioner’s sister was already in Government service at the time of death of the deceased employee. He submits that the claim has been considered in accordance with the applicable policy and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was considered pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 passed in WPS No.1784/2026 and was rejected vide order dated 17.06.2026 on the ground that one of the family members of the deceased employee, namely, the petitioner’s sister, is already in Government service. The competent authority has thus considered the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the policy governing compassionate appointment.
The contention of the petitioner that his sister is married, residing separately with her husband and is not maintaining the family, does not, in the facts of the present case, persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner’s claim has been examined by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable policy and he has been found ineligible on account of the fact that his sister was already in Government service at the relevant time. Once the competent authority has considered the claim in terms of the applicable policy, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct relaxation of the policy merely on equitable considerations. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out.
The Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur (WA No.236 of 2022, decided on 07.07.2023), while placing reliance upon the Larger Bench/Full Bench decision of this Court, reiterated the legal position and held as under in paragraph 4:
“4.A careful perusal of the order passed by the full Bench would show that the full Bench of this Court has clearly held that no such inquiry can be made qua the dependency / financial support by one of the family members of the deceased who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased who has made the application for compassionate appointment. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain and accordingly, set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent herein would stand dismissed.”
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the competent authority has rejected the petitioner's claim in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy applicable at the relevant point of time. No jurisdictional error, arbitrariness or illegality is found in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court.
Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merit liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.