1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 648 of 2022 1 - Monika Pandey W/o Shomesh Kumar Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 10 , Pachori Afrid, Champa , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Department Of General Administration Department Through Its Secretary , Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. RCS Deo Samant, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.05.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the instant petition. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by the Respondent No. 3 being arbitrary, illegal and non- est in the eyes of law. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ/ Writ(s) directing the Respondent Authorities to reinstate the petitioner in the post from the date of the termination with all the benefits in accordance with law. 10.4. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other Relief/Relief(s), Direction/ Direction(s) in favour of the Petitioner as this REKHA SINGH 2 Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.5. Award cost of proceedings in favour of the Petitioner. 2. Mr. Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father-in-law of the petitioner, namely late Ramnarayan Pandey was Head Master in the Government Girls Old Middle School, Afrid, District Janjgir-Champa, who died in harness on 02.11.2020. He would further submit that the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 28.12.2020 and she was offered appointment against the post of Helper Grade-III under respondent No.3 vide order dated 28.05.2021. Mr. Agrawal would contend that the petitioner joined her services but surprisingly, she received a show-cause notice issued by respondent No.3 on 16.12.2021 wherein, an allegation was made that she suppressed the fact that one of family member is already in service. It is argued that the petitioner filed reply to said show-cause notice and thereafter, services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No.3 vide order dated 24.12.2021 on said ground. Mr. Agrawal would submit that services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that her husband was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. He would contend that Shiksha Karmi is not holder of civil post under the State Government, therefore, respondent No.3 committed error of law while treating the husband of the petitioner a civil servant. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Harnarayan Yadav Vs. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, passed in 3 WPS No.1436 of 2015 decided on 19.04.2017. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Agrawal. Mr. Samant would submit that husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Shiksha Karmi and this fact was suppressed by the petitioner, therefore, her appointment was rightly cancelled by respondent No.3. He would further submit that though husband of the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi but subsequently, his services were absorbed with the School Education Department, thus, he would come within the definition of the civil servant. He would submit that writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. 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. The Clause 6A was inserted in the Policy vide Circular issued by the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, dated 29.08.2016 which reads as under : “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 4 son/daughter, widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) mother, brother and sister." Bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that if one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is in civil service, other dependents would not be eligible to claim compassionate appointment but in the present case, member of the deceased Government servant was not in civil service rather the husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, therefore, in my opinion, the Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment would not attract at all. 6. It is held in the matter of Harnarayan Yadav (supra) that Shiksha Karmis who were appointed by Panchayat Department would not come within the definition of civil servant. The husband of the petitioner was Shiksha Karmi and subsequently, his services were absorbed by the School Education Department and thus, originally he was an employee of Panchayat department. Paras 8, 9 & 15 of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench are reproduced herein below : “8.It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under the Rules of 2007 enacted under Section 70(1) read with Section 95 of the Act of 1993 and the said Rules were not framed in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was appointed on the said post by Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara and his appointing as well as disciplinary authority is the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara and as such, administrative and disciplinary control vest in Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara. 5 9. In order to decide the question whether Shiksha Karmi Grade-III is the government servant and entitled for age relaxation at par with the government servant, the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others, reported in (1980) 4 SCC 653 deserves to be noticed. In the aforesaid case, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while considering the question whether members of Gujarat Panchayat Service are government servant laid down certain factors, which would indicate relationship of master and servant. It was observed as under:- "27. We have to first consider the question whether the members of the Gnjarat Panchayat Service are Government Servants. Earlier we have already said enough to indicate our view that they are Government Servants. We do not propose and indeed it is neither politic nor possible to lay down any definitive test to determine when a person may be said to hold a civil post under the Government. Several factors may indicate the relationship of master and servant. None may be conclusive. On the other hand, no single factor may be considered absolutely essential. The presence of all or some of the factors, such as, the right to select for appointment, the right to appoint, the right to terminate the employment, the right to take other disciplinary action, the right to prescribe the conditions of service, the nature of the duties performed by the employee, the right to control the employee's manner and method of the work, the right to issue directions and the right to determine and the source from which wages or salary are paid and a host of such circumstances, may have to be considered to determine the existence of the relationship of master and servant. In each case, it is a question of fact whether a person is a servant of the State or not. 15. Applying the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid 11 2009(2) M.P.H.T. 277 (DB) 12 2012(4) M.P.H.T. 542 judgments, if the facts of the present case are examined, it is quite apparent that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (now re- designated as Assistant Teacher Panchayat) under the Rules of 2007. The said Rules were promulgated under Section 70(1) read with Section 95 of the Act of 1993. That rules were not framed in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is also apparent that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, his appointing as well as 6 disciplinary authority is the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara and as such, full administrative and disciplinary control vest in Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara. Merely because he has been placed under the disposal of school owned by the State Government, he cannot claim that he is a government servant. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is not entitled for protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Viewed from any angle, it cannot be held that the petitioner was appointed under the Rules promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as such, the petitioner having been appointed by Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara pursuant to the Rules framed under the Rules promulgated under Section 70(1) of the Act of 1993 and admittedly not entitled for protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be held that the petitioner is government servant and is entitled for age relaxation.” 7. Taking into consideration the facts-discussed above and the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Harnarayan Yadav (supra), in opinion of this Court, the order dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. 8. With regard to arrears of salary, seniority etc., the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before respondent No.3 within a period of 60 days from today and in turn, the said authority is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in an objective manner preferably within a further period of 90 days. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha