1 2025:CGHC:10007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3900 of 2018  Mahendra Kumar Tekam S/o Shri Sewak Ram, Aged About 26 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Korampara, Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The District Education Officer, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Collector, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Add. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28. 02.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for 'kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quashed the impugned letter dated 17/04/2018 issued by the respondent No.2 and direct the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner and give the compassionate appointment to SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.01 10:29:07 +0530 2 the petitioner. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the basis of humanitarian grounds. 10.4 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the uncle of the petitioner, namely, Dayaram Tekam, who was working as a Lecturer / In-charge Principal under respondent No. 2 at the Government Higher Secondary School, Hirapur, District Kondagaon (C.G.) died in harness on 24.02.2016. The nephew of the deceased moved an application for compassionate appointment on 29.04.2016 and a succession certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner to claim the retiral dues of the deceased. The application moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17.04.2018 on the ground that according to the circular dated 14.06.2013, the nephew of the deceased is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that according to the circular issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, distant relatives are also entitled to get compassionate appointments. He would further submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that according to the circular for compassionate appointment dated 14.06.2013, the nephew or any other relatives are not entitled to secure compassionate appointment. 5. Heard. 3 6. Clause 5 of the circular dated 14.06.2013 describes the eligible persons who can claim compassionate appointment and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- “5. अनुकम्पा निनयुनि हेतु पा्ቔ उम्मी्ቛार - निवंगत शासकीय सेवक के आቦኌत परिरवार के निनम्नलि लि!त वयस्क सस्यों में से निकसी एक सस्य को नीचे ቦኌशत ्ቅमानुसार अቕኋा+त् (क) के अस्वीकार करने पर या पा्ቔ न होने पर (!) को एवं उसके प्ቐात् इसी अनु्ቅम में आगे (ग), (घ) एवं (ङ) की अनुकम्पा निनयुनि हेतु ्ቅमशः निवचार निकया जायेगाः- (क) निवंगत शासकीय सेवक की निवधवा/निवधुर, (!) पु्ቔ/ ्ቈक पु्ቔ, (ग) ¹[*] पु्ቔी/ [*] ्ቈक पु्ቔी, (घ) आቦኌत निवधवा पु्ቔी/ आቦኌत ्ቈक निवधवा पु्ቔी एवं, (ङ) आቦኌत त ाकशुा पु्ቔी/ आቦኌत त ाकशुा ्ቈक पु्ቔी। [(च) पु्ቔवधु।]” 7. From a perusal of clause 5 of the circular dated 14.06.2013, it is quite vivid that the nephew is not entitled to claim a compassionate appointment. 8. With regard to the contention made by Mr. Prajapati that the authorities concerned should consider the claim of the petitioner according to the circular issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the contention appears to be misconceived. The circular, which is applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, where the deceased was working, would be relevant, and the circular issued in other States cannot be considered for the grant of a compassionate appointment. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no ground is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant