1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8959 of 2022 1 - Alok Sudarshan Tandon S/o Late Chakra Sudarshan Tandon, Aged About 36 Years R/o. Baloda, Tehsil Baloda, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Public Instruction, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Jevra, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned termination order dated 11.11.2022 (Annex.P/1), passed by District Education officer, Bilaspur and petitioner may kindly be reinstate in service with all consequential benefits. 2 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the present case are that father of the petitioner namely Late Chakra Sudarshan Tandon, who was a Principal, died in harness on 14.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and he was granted appointment vide order dated 02.06.2021 on the post of Assistant Grade-III. Later on, a complaint was made and it was found that the brother of the petitioner namely, Ranjit Sudarshan Tandon is in Government service and therefore, the order of appointment has been cancelled by the District Education Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide order dated 11.11.2022. It is admitted fact that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and in reply, it was stated that the brother of the petitioner was appointed prior to death of father and he never financially assisted the petitioner or family. 3. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that no inquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities to ascertain the financial condition of the petitioner. He would pray to quash order dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Education Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patel. He would submit that according to Clause 6A of the Policy for compassionate appointment, if one of the family members of the deceased is already in Government service, any other member of the family would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. He would 3 further submit that the petitioner has not challenged the circular issued by the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, dated 29.08.2016 whereby clause 6A was inserted. As per the subsequent circular dated 29.08.2016, if any member of the deceased’s family is already in Government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. He would argue that in Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Kevra Bai) and Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai), the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the direction for factual inquiry regarding the income, holding that there is no such provision in the policy; thus, he prays for the dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while dealing with Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, has categorically held that an inquiry into the financial condition of dependents is not envisaged in the policy. Therefore, no such direction can be issued. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below: "13. Clause 6A of the Scheme reads as follows: "6A. In the family of the deceased married government servant, if any other member of the family is already in government service, then the other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Explanation. Dependents of the family of deceased married and unmarried government servant shall include the following members: A) In case of married government servant - Dependent mother, dependent parents, widow/widower, son and daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/ 4 divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) mother, brother and sister." 15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would go to show that it does not envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment." 7. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, late Chakra Sudarshan Tandon, who was a Principal, died in harness on 14.02.2021. The application moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was allowed and he joined on the post of Assistant Grade-III pursuant to order dated 02.06.2021. A complaint was made and in inquiry, it was found that brother of the petitioner is already in Government service, therefore, the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 11.11.2022. 8. Clause 6A was inserted in the policy for compassionate appointment vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the said circular in the present petition. 9. In the present case, as the petitioner suppressed the fact that his brother is already in Government service and the appointment, if 5 any, offered to the petitioner was in contravention to Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, therefore, respondent authorities rightly cancelled the order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner. 10. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha