-1- 2025:CGHC:19885 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1945 of 2017 Abhishek Kumar Rajput S/o Santosh Singh Rajput, Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Near P. H. E. office, Durg Road, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Block C, First Floor, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education officer, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Education officer, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.05.2025 1) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the legality and -2- propriety of the order dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that his father is already in Government service. The rejection was based on the clarification dated 29.08.2016 issued by the State Government amending the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment in the circular dated 14.06.2013. 2) The brief facts necessary for the adjudication are as follows:- A. The petitioner’s mother, Smt. Indumati Rajput was working as a Headmistress under the Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh. Unfortunately, she passed away while in service on 17.07.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 11.08.2016 along with relevant documents and a no-objection certificate of other family members before respondent No. 4. B. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 3 for consideration. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 sought clarification from the competent authority (respondent No. 2) regarding the eligibility of the petitioner, as it was noted that his father was in government service. Respondent No. 2, vide clarification dated 29.08.2016 opined that according to the amended guidelines, if any of the family members is in government service, the dependent would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Placing reliance on the clarification, respondent No. 3 vide order dated 04.11.2016 rejected the petitioner’s application. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would make the following submissions:- A. The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 11.08.2016, whereas the amendment/clarification came into effect on 29.08.2016. Therefore, the said clarification cannot be -3- applied retrospectively to the case of the petitioner. C. The petitioner was dependent solely on his deceased mother and not on his father. Further, the circular dated 14.06.2013 was in force on the date of the death of his mother and there is no such restriction in the said circular. D. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 5857 of 2021. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Lav Sharma, learned State counsel would submit as under:- A. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities in accordance with the prevailing policy for compassionate appointment. B. The circular dated 29/08/2016 introduced an amendment to the policy for compassionate appointment dated 14/06/2013, clarifying that if there is already an earning member in the family of the deceased government servant, the dependent would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. C. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner, Santosh Kumar Rajput, was in permanent government service, and this fact has been admitted by the petitioner himself in his application. Therefore, as per the amended policy dated 29/08/2016, the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment. E. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Others, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, and would contend that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the policy prevailing on the date of consideration would be relevant. -4- 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 6) In the matter of N.C. Santhosh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in para-19 held as under:- “19.Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.” 7) The contention made by counsel for the petitioner that he was solely dependent on his mother cannot be accepted as being factual and subjective, and compassionate appointment cannot be granted on sympathetic grounds contrary to the express terms of the applicable policy. 8) With respect to the reliance placed by the petitioner in the matter of Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu (supra), where it has been held that the policy for compassionate appointment prevailing on the date of death would be applicable and would be considered with prospective effect and not with retrospective effect. But in the case of N.C. Santosh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of the claim for compassionate -5- appointment. It seems that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of N.C. Santosh (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench. Admittedly, on the date of the consideration, the policy dated 29.8.2016 was in force therefore the respondent authorities rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 9) In light of the above-discussion, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 04.11.2016 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 10) Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM