1 2025:CGHC:338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 81 of 2022 1 - Rini Alisha Franklin D/o Late Sameer Frankin, Aged About 26 Years R/o Shail Vihar, Mangla, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Minimata Hasdeo Bango Project, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Anil Tripathi, Advocate For State :- Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 03.01.2025 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of present case, from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, afresh, in accordance with law. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. The instant writ petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 2, whereby the application/claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner's father namely Ishwar Ram Kujur was working as Assistant Grade-2 in Water Resources Department and during his service tenure, he died on 16.01.2021. The petitioner's mother namely Sandhya Franklin, who is also in government service, is living separately and the petitioner was fully dependent upon her father. The petitioner is living with her uncle Sanjay Kumar Franklin since last 12 years and father of petitioner was providing money to the uncle of 3 petitioner for keeping the petitioner in his house. After the death of her father, the petitioner submitted an application for obtaining compassionate appointment in place of her father. While filing the application, the petitioner has submitted the relevant documents including consent of other family members as well as her mother- Sandhya Franklin. However, without considering the actual situation, vide impugned order dated 25.09.2021, the respondent No. 2 has rejected the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, on the ground that the petitioner's mother namely Sandhya Franklin is a government servant, therefore, in view of policy of State Government, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner has made representation on 16.10.2021, whereby she has requested for reconsideration of her case for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground of her dependency on her father as she was fully dependent upon her father, but till date, her representation has not been considered and decided. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, bad in law and liable to be set-aside. He submits that the petitioner was fully dependent upon her father, who used to provide money to the petitioner's uncle for keeping the petitioner in his house. He submits that as the petitioner was fully depended upon her father and after his death, the petitioner is not able to maintain herself 4 and is facing great difficulties to survive herself, therefore, she is in extreme need to get an employment on compassionate ground, so that she may survive. He further submits that in an identical case bearing WPS No. 3665 of 2021, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed order and the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the said order. Accordingly, the said impugned order may be set-aside and the present petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since mother of the petitioner is already in government job, as such, in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment, the candidature of the petitioner/applicant has been rejected and in the absence of any challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondent authority cannot be said to be illegal and bad in law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Yash Kumar Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WA No.842/2024 vide order dated 12.12.2024 has confirmed the order passed by learned Single Judge in which the claim for compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that one of the family member is in government service. The relevant para is quoted hereinbelow:- “13.Learned Single Judge further held that it is not in dispute that the mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi as such, it cannot be said that 5 deceased employees died in harness entitled the appellant to get compassionate appointment. Even the retiral dues of the Government Servant along with emoluments earned by the family members of the Shiksha Karmi who are now government servant cannot be said to be insufficient to fall the appellant within the ambit of sudden financial crisis or penury. The financial crisis or penury is basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government regarding grant of compassionate appointment. As such, the action of the respondents authorities in canceling the appointment or not issuing appointment order to the appellant on compassionate ground is justified on the count that mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi who is not government servant still he is in gainful employment and it cannot be held that appellant is having sudden financial or pecuniary crisis, as such, the order of cancellation of appointment is legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity. 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 6 8. Taking into the present case in hand, since the mother of the petitioner is already in government service, as such, according to policy for compassionate appointment of the State Government as also the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha