1 2025:CGHC:35990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3913 of 2021 Anish Deep Kurre S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Kurre Aged About 23 Years Resident Of 157, Ward No. 08, Daav Para, Sakroud Post Office Rahud, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Education Officer Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Adocate, holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P-1 letter dated 03- 07-2021 and order respondent no.2 to consider and grant appointment as per judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.S. No. 407/2021 within stipulated period which may be specified by the Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. 2 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, late Om Prakash Kurre, was working as a Lecturer in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Arjunda, District Balod, and died in harness on 11.06.2021 during the COVID-19 period. He left behind the petitioner, his brother, and elderly parents. His first wife, namely Hemlata Kurre, died on 23.05.2002. After her death, the father of the petitioner remarried to one Smt. Sarswati Kurre, who is serving as an Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Rahud. It is pleaded that Smt. Sarswati Kurre has been residing separately along with her son since 2008. After the death of the late Om Prakash Kurre, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 21.06.2021 through the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School. A consent letter was given by the petitioner's brother in his favour on 21.06.2021. Smt. Sarswati Kurre also informed the department, vide letter dated 30.06.2021, that she had been residing separately along with her son. However, the application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the District Education Officer (for short, DEO) on 03.07.2021 on the ground that one member of the family is already in Government service. 3 3. Mr. V. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that Smt. Sarswati Kurre, the second wife of the deceased employee, is a Government teacher and has been residing separately along with her son; therefore, she cannot be treated as a dependent family member of the late Om Prakash Kurre. He would further contend that the petitioner, his brother, and the deceased’s aged parents are not dependent on the income of Smt. Sarswati Kurre, hence, the DEO ought to have allowed the application for compassionate appointment. He placed reliance on the judgment passed in WPS No. 407 of 2021, wherein it has been held that the mere fact that one family member is in Government service cannot be a sole ground to reject the claim for compassionate appointment; a proper inquiry regarding the financial dependency should be conducted. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State, Ms. Shukla, would oppose the submissions and submit that the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, has issued circulars dated 14.06.2013 and 29.08.2016 regarding compassionate appointment. As per the circular dated 29.8.2016, if any member of the deceased’s family is already in Government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. She would further contend that it is not in dispute that the second wife of the late Om Prakash Kurre is in Government service, and this fact has not been denied by the petitioner. As regards the judgment relied upon by the 4 petitioner’s counsel, she 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 such directions for factual inquiry regarding income, holding that there is no such provision in the policy; thus, she prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 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/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) mother, brother and sister." 5 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. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner’s case. 8. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, late Om Prakash Kurre, died on 11.06.2021. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 21.06.2021 and was rejected by the DEO, Balod, on 03.07.2021 on the ground that one member of the family is already in Government service. 9. Smt. Sarswati Kurre is the second wife of the deceased employee. The petitioner has not denied this fact anywhere in the petition. The claim for compassionate appointment has been made on the ground that she has been residing separately along with her son. However, this 6 contention cannot be accepted, as she remains a family member of the deceased employee, and she is in Government service too. 10.Clause 6A of the compassionate appointment policy was inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the said circular in the present petition. 11.It is a well-settled principle of law that an application for compassionate appointment must be decided strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. 12.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. 13.Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim