1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2940 of 2023 Reserved On : 17.03.2026 Pronounced On : 17.04.2026 Smt. Gyanti Tiwari @ Smt. Gyanti Devi Widow Of Late Ghanshyam Tiwari, Aged About 46 Years, Occupation- House Wife, R/o Police Line- Ambikapur, Police Station and Tahsil- Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Department of General Administration, New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Superintendent Of Police, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 6 - Smt. Neha Tiwari, Widow Of Late Avinash Tiwari, Aged About 22 Years, Occupation- Service, Constable (Woman) R/o Near Police Control Room (Dhaurpur House), Police Station and Tahsil- Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. AN Bhakta, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondent No.6 : : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The petitioner is the unfortunate mother of late Avinash Tiwari, who died in harness on 26.12.2021. Deceased Avinash Tiwari had himself been granted compassionate appointment as a Bal Arakshak after the demise of his father Ghanshyam Tiwari (the petitioner’s husband), who also died in harness on 18.3.2001. 2. The grievance of the petitioner stems from her continued state of dependency. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, her son late Avinash Tiwari was appointed on a compassionate basis and became her sole provider. Tragically, her son also passed away while in service on 26.12.2021. Consequently, her daughter- in-law namely Neha Tiwari (respondent No.6) has been granted 3 compassionate appointment after the demise of late Avinash Tiwari. At the time of seeking the said appointment, respondent No.6 submitted documents along with an undertaking to the effect that she will provide full care and maintenance to her mother-in- law (present petitioner), who was dependent of late Avinash Tiwari. 3. Nevertheless, despite such undertaking, respondent No.6 has failed to honour her commitment, leaving the petitioner in a state of destitution. Therefore, by way of this petition, the petitioner (mother-in-law) has prayed for the following reliefs : 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the compassionate appointment order dated 08.03.2022 (Annexure P-1), issued in favour of Respondent No.6, in the Interest of justice. 10.3 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities concerned to consider alternatively and provide the compassionate appointment to Petitioner's unmarried daughter namely Preeti Tiwari, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded. 4 4. The factual matrix of the present case, leading to filing this petition, is briefly enumerated as under : The petitioner’s husband late Ghanshyam Tiwari was employed as a Constable in the Department of Home Affairs, State of Chhattsigarh. He died in harness on 18.3.2001. At the time of demise of the husband of the petitioner, her son namely late Avinash Tiwari was minor. After scrutiny of the application, late Avinash Tiwari was appointed as Bal Arakshak vide order dated 4.2.2006. After attaining majority, late Avinash Tiwari was granted regular appointment as Constable vide order dated 4.8.2017. During the processing of initial appointment application, the petitioner submitted the particulars of dependent family members on 26.3.2003. Subsequently, late Avinash Tiwari also passed away in harness on 26.12.2021. After the death of Avinash Tiwari, respondent No.6 – Neha Tiwari (wife of late Avinash Tiwari) was granted compassionate appointment. However, immediately upon securing appointment, respondent No.6 began to misbehave and ill-treat the petitioner. She has since refused to maintain the petitioner, leaving her in a state of destitution and starvation. Aggrieved by the conduct of respondent No.6, the petitioner submitted an application dated 24.3.2023 stating that since respondent No.6 is not taking care and maintaining her, the compassionate appointment order dated 8.3.2022 issued in her favour may be cancelled. 5 5. It is pertinent to mention here that on an earlier date of hearing, this Court directed the concerned parties to file affidavits disclosing their income and movable and immovable properties held by them, to facilitate an equitable adjudication of the matter. In compliance of the said direction, the parties have filed their respective affidavits. 6. Mr. AN Bhakta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6, having secured the compassionate appointment in place of late Avinash Tiwari, bears a solemn responsibility to maintain and take care of the petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased. The petitioner was entirely dependent upon her son, who was previously granted compassionate appointment after the demise of his father (husband of the petitioner). He submits that except respondent No.6, there is no other family member capable of providing support to the petitioner. Furthermore, in view of the undertaking submitted at the time of appointment, it has become a pious and legal obligation of respondent No.6 to ensure the petitioner’s well- being. He also submits that the consent of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to respondent No.6 was on the basis of an undertaking that the latter would provide for the maintenance and care of her mother-in-law (the petitioner). However, upon securing the appointment, respondent No.6 has acted in total disregard of the said undertaking and has refused to fulfill her obligation to support the petitioner. Learned counsel for 6 the petitioner submits that she is only getting Rs.7775/- per month as family pension. Apart from this amount, she has no other source of income. Conversely, while respondent No.6 possesses sufficient financial means, she had failed to fulfill her legal and moral obligation to provide care and maintenance to the petitioner, which she is denying. 7. Per contra, Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that though the petitioner is getting a monthly salary of Rs.28,360/-, but she has taken a loan of Rs.6 lakhs with a monthly installment of Rs.11,000/- (approx.). Further, she is also paying monthly rent of Rs.4000/- , exclusive of other charges. Consequently, she is not having sufficient income to provide maintenance to her mother-in-law. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 lastly submits that the petitioner (mother-in-law) is having adequate independent income to lead a comfortable life. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is the mother of deceased-employee Avinash Tiwari. At the time of death of her husband- late Ghanshyam Tiwari, who was also a Constable, late Avinash Tiwari was minor. Initially, he was granted compassionate appointment to the post of Bal Arakshak. After attaining majority, Avinash Tiwari was appointed as Constable, however, unfortunately, he also died in harness. Subsequently, respondent No.6- Neha Tiwari, who is the wife of late Avinash Tiwari, was granted compassionate 7 appointment after his demise. It is evident that both the petitioner (mother-in-law) and respondent (daughter-in-law {widow}) were dependent upon deceased Avinash Tiwari during his lifetime. 10. The compassionate appointments are granted to provide immediate succor to the families of the employees, who die in harness, in order to mitigate the sudden financial crunch suffered by them. Under the prevailing Policy governing Compassionate Appointment, an applicant, who seeks compassionate appointment, gives a declaration to the effect that he or she will support the dependent members of the deceased-employee in the future. Failure to adhere to this undertaking renders the appointment liable for termination. Clause 13 of the Policy reads as under : (13) अनुकम्पा निनुयुक्ति क आदेश जारी करीनु क पार्व कयुलयु प्रमुख द्वारी आर्वदेक से पारिरीनिशष्ट-दे मु निनुर्धारिरीत प्ररूपा, मु दिदेर्व%गत शसेक'यु सेर्वक क पारिरीर्वरी क अन्यु सेदेस्यु* क सेमुनि+त भरीण- पाषण करीनु क से%बं%र्धा मु घोषण-पात्र भरीर्वकरी प्रप्त दिकयु जायुग । घोषण-पात्र क उल्ल%घोनु करीनु क से%बं%र्धा मु पारिरीर्वरी क आनि6त सेदेस्यु / सेदेस्यु* द्वारी क' गई निशकयुत प्रमुणिणत पाई जानु पारी अनुकम्पा निनुयुक्ति दिकसे9 भ9 सेमुयु सेमुप्त क' जा सेक ग9 । 11. From a bare perusal of this clause, it appears that an applicant seeking compassionate appointment is bound by specific conditions. Apart from other requirements, there is a condition that the applicant must give an undertaking to the effect that he or 8 she shall maintain the dependents of deceased-employee, meaning thereby there is a legally binding obligation upon the appointee to provide for the welfare and maintenance of the surviving dependent family members. 12. Referencing the above clause in the context of the present case, it is observed that late Avinash Tiwari was initially granted compassionate appointment after the demise of his father namely late Ghanshyam Tiwari. A specific condition of the said appointment required late Avinash Tiwari to maintain his mother i.e. the present petitioner. Accordingly, late Avinash Tiwari assumed the responsibility to provide for her maintenance. Upon the unfortunate demise of late Avinash Tiwari, respondent No.6 was subsequently granted compassionate appointment. However, the grant of this appointment to respondent No.6 was subject to the condition (undertaking) that she would look after and maintain the dependent family members, including the petitioner herein. 13. Evidently, the petitioner’s dependency was established upon the death of her husband, which necessitated the initial appointment of her son late Avinash Tiwari. This dependency, having been recognized, persists as a primary obligation for any subsequent appointee, including respondent No.6. Upon the death of the petitioner’s son, when the compassionate appointment was granted to respondent No.6, the legal obligation to maintain the dependent did not extinguish rather it continued. Ultimately, as the widow of late Avinash Tiwari and beneficiary of the 9 compassionate appointment, respondent No.6 bears the legal responsibility to support and maintain the petitioner i.e. her mother-in-law. The provision of such maintenance is a condition precedent for grant of compassionate appointment. Accordingly, respondent No.6 cannot evade her liability to provide for the petitioner, as the appointment granted to her is subject to the condition that she shall maintain and care for her mother-in-law. 14. Furthermore, it is a moral and social obligation that elderly persons, particularly in the twilight of their lives, are protected from neglect or destitution. In the present matter, it is a matter of profound distress that the petitioner, at this vulnerable stage of her life, has been compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to secure her fundamental right to maintenance and a life of dignity. The petitioner herein seeks a decisive remedy : in the event that respondent No.6 continues to abdicate her solemn obligation to provide maintenance, the compassionate appointment granted specifically to alleviate the family’s collective penury, must be held liable for rescission. In a civilized society, it is a matter of grave concern that a daughter-in-law, who became the beneficiary of state employment, solely on account of the untimely demise of the petitioner’s son, would now seek to repudiate the very dependency that formed the basis of her appointment. Such a denial not only constitutes a breach of the undertaking given to the State but also is in contravention of the spirit of the compassionate appointment scheme. 10 15. In a judgment rendered in the matter of Smt. Yashoda Devi and another Vs. State of UP and 3 others, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine All 2867, the following was held by the High Court of Allahabad in para 5, 6, 7 & 8 : 5. The only issue raised by petitioners apparently is that respondent no. 4 has failed to honour his commitment made before the authorities that he shall take care of the petitioners also. Rule 7 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 reads as under:— “7. Procedure when more than one member of the family seeks employment. - If more than one member of the family of the deceased Government servant seeks employment under these rules, the Head of Office shall decide about the suitability of the person for giving employment. The decision will be taken keeping in view also the overall interest of the welfare of the entire family, particularly the widow and the minor members thereof.” 6. In case petitioners allege that the undertaking given by respondent no. 4 has not been honoured or that the said respondent has failed to comply with the obligation imposed upon him, by virtue of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974, it shall be open for the petitioners to invite attention of the District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur, in that regard, and it goes without saying that the concern authority, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent no. 4, shall proceed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that compassionate appointment is offered only with an intent to enable the dependents of the deceased government servant to tide over the sudden difficulty caused due to death of the government servant in harness. 8. The rules casts a positive obligation upon the person, who is appointed to support other family members also. In case the authority finds that concern respondent has not discharged his obligation, as per the law, it would be open for him to withdraw the 11 benefit already extended or to impose such other conditions, as may be found expedient, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, as also the provision of law. The required consideration would be made upon the petitioners' application, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 16. Furthermore, in a judgment rendered in the matter of Durgabala Mdandal Vs. State of West Bengal and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 169, the following was held by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in para 8, 10, 11 & 12 : 8. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that only surviving son of the appellant is unemployed and is not in a position to look after the appellant. He has also submitted that once the appointment on compassionate ground was obtained by the respondent no. 9 by giving an undertaking before the authorities that she will maintain the appellant then at this stage she cannot turn around and ignore the appellant. 10. We have also perused the affidavit dated 25th July, 2016 which was submitted by the respondent no. 9 at the stage of obtaining the compassionate appointment. The said affidavit clearly states as under: “2. That my husband Braja Dulal Mandal died on-14/10/2014 and he has an employee as a Primary School Teacher. 3. That I do hereby declare that in the event of my Appointment as a Clerk (C-Group) under the Government of West Bengal on compassionate ground, I shall be bound the entire responsibility along with all maintenance with treatment of my mother-in-law Srimatya Durga Bala Mandal in future and for ever.” 11. Once the respondent no. 9 had obtained the compassionate appointment by giving an undertaking as above to maintain and extend medical assistance to the appellant, then she is bound by that. 12 12. In these circumstances, we dispose of the present appeal granting liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate detailed representation before the respondent no. 6 who will duly consider the grievance of the appellant and pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity to the appellant and the respondent no. 9 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the representation. 17. Had the petitioner's son remained alive, he would undoubtedly have continued to discharge his filial and legal obligations towards his mother i.e the petitioner. Indeed, the record shows that he consistently provided for her maintenance throughout his lifetime. After his demise, respondent No.6 having stepped into the shoes of the deceased-employee (the son) for the purpose of securing a compassionate appointment, cannot be permitted to evade the derivative liability to maintain the petitioner. This obligation is intrinsically linked to the benefit of the appointment. Respondent No.6, as the successor to the deceased employee’s livelihood, is bound by the same standards of responsibility that were expected of the deceased during his lifetime. To permit the respondent to enjoy the fruits of the appointment while repudiating the dependency upon which it was founded would be miscarriage of justice and a violation of the very object of the compassionate appointment policy. Such an appointment is not a personal windfall or a hereditary right; rather, it is a social welfare measure intended to provide a security net for the entire family of the deceased. 13 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, respondent No.6 is hereby directed to provide regular maintenance to the petitioner, commensurate with the standard of living provided by the deceased- employee (the son) during his lifetime. The appointment of respondent No.6 dated 8.3.2022, is hereby declared ‘conditional’. Any verified breach of this maintenance obligation shall be deemed as a misconduct and a breach of the conditions of the appointment, rendering the service liable for termination/revocation. In the event of such a breach, the concerned authority shall be at liberty to initiate revocation proceedings in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. 19. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Writ Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay