1 / 8 2025:CGHC:20779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 56 of 20 17 • Suresh Kumar Thawait (Died) through Lrs. 1. - Sarda Thawait Wd/o Late Suresh Kumar Thawait Aged About 28 Years Occupation - House Wife, R/o Ward No. 09, Behar Gali, Sarangarh, Police Station And Tehsil Sarangarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary General Administration Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation C.G. I.D.C. Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation C.G.I.D.C. Parivahan Prabhag Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate with Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2-State For Resp. No. 3 & 4 : : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Mr. Harsh Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput , Judg e ORDER ON BOARD 06/05/2025 1. This instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs. “10.1 to issue a writ of Mandamus as against the Respondents for considering the application of petitioner’s Compassionate Appointment henceforth in accordance with the prevailing policy and directives in force at the time of the death of the employee. 10.2 to grant any other suitable relief to the petitioner which is in the opinion of this court PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 8 awardable to the petitioner in the interest of justice” 2. Brief facts of the case which emerge from the pleadings are that father-in- law of petitioner namely Prem Prakash Thawait was working as Assistant Grade-3 at Industrial Institute of Training at Sarangarh, District Raigarh, while working he died in harness on 20.04.2016. Due to the sad demise of late Prem Prakash Thawait, his family members are facing financial hardship as the deceased was the only breadwinner of the family. After the demise of deceased, his only son namely Suresh Kumar Thawait, moved an application on 05.05.2016 to get benefit of prevailing Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2013 for the post of Siksha Karmi Gr. 3, which was considered and the same was rejected by the Collector, Raigarh, observing that he does not have the necessary qualifications for appointment on the post of Siksha Karmi Gr. 3, challenging the same this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the father-in-law of petitioner was working as Stenographer Asst. Grade-3 in Industrial Training Institute, Sarangarh and he died in harness on 20.04.2016. After his death his son-Suresh Kumar Thawait (husband of petitioner) made an application for considering his case for appointment on the compassionate ground to the post of Siksha Karmi Gr. 3 on 05.05.2016. His application was rejected by Respondent No. 2/ Collector, Raigarh vide its memo dated 23.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) indicating therein that he does not have requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Siksha Karmi Gr. 3. Challenging the same, this writ petition was filed by Suresh Kumar Thawait, son of deceased employee. During pendency of this writ petition, original petitioner-Suresh Kumar Thawait passed away and the petitioner who is widow of late Suresh Kumar Thawait was substituted as his legal representative to prosecute this writ petition. He further submits that during pendency of this writ petition, a representation 3 / 8 was made by the petitioner on 08.08.2022 before Respondent No. 2/ Collector for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground on any post looking to the qualification of the petitioner. He would submit that though the father-in-law of petitioner was initially an employee of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “MPSRTC”), however his services were absorbed by Respondents No. 3 & 4 and later on he was directed to be posted at Industrial Training Institute, Sarangarh. For this purpose, he places reliance upon Annexure P-5 transfer order of the deceased (father-in-law of petitioner). He further submits that the case of petitioner ought to have been considered in light of the policy formulated for compassionate appointment of the State Government dated 14.06.2013, Clause-5, wherein the daughter-in-law was added as an eligible candidate for getting appointment on the compassionate ground w.e.f. 30.04.2016. Though the father-in-law of petitioner died on 20.04.2016, however, writ petition was pending and his husband (son of the deceased employee) also died and the petitioner stood in the shoes of the son of deceased employee, therefore, case of petitioner for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered. He submits that the issue with respect to grant of compassionate appointment to the daughter-in-law is no longer res integra in light of the judgment of this Court passed in WPS No. 5051/2014 (Smt. Duliya Bai Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh). He further submits that identical situation has arisen in many cases, one of them being in WPS No. 4272/2020 (Sajan Kumar Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and other connected matters, wherein this Court vide its order dated 25.11.2024 directed the Secretary to the State Government to pass appropriate orders with respect to claim of petitioners therein. Likewise in WPS No. 1596/2014 (Ashish Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of Chhattisgarh), similar law was laid down by this Court in its order dated 03.05.2018. He further submits that after death of father-in-law and the 4 / 8 husband of petitioner, there is no male earning member in the family of petitioner and they are survived by only the female members and it has become very difficult for them for all these years to survive without there being any source of income. Considering this fact, the State Government may be directed to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment. 4. Per contra, Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned State counsel submits that father- in-law of petitioner was initially an employee of MPSRTC and after dissolution of MPSRTC services of father-in-law of petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh with Respondents No. 3 & 4 and he was sent on deputation to the post of Assistant Grade-3 in the Department of Employment and Training and was posted at Industrial Training Institute, Raigarh. Since the petitioner’s husband was not having qualification to be appointed on the post of Siksha Karmi Gr. 3 in light of the Policy of the State Government for compassionate appointment, his application was not considered. At present there is no post of Siksha Karmi Gr. 3. Therefore, case of petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. 5. Mr. Harsh Tripathi, learned counsel for Respondents No. 3 & 4 submits that the decision to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on the compassionate ground is in the domain of Respondents No. 1 & 2/ State authorities and Respondents No. 3 & 4 would abide by any direction issued by the State Government and as such claim of petitioner cannot be considered by Respondents No. 3 & 4. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on both sides and also perused the record. 7. Admittedly, earlier the father-in-law of petitioner was an employee of MPSRTC and after its dissolution his services was absorbed by Respondents No. 3 & 4 and was working on deputation with Respondents 5 / 8 No. 1 & 2. Father-in-law of petitioner was died in harness on 20.04.2016 and thereafter an application was made by his son which was rejected holding that he did not have the requisite qualification to be appointed to the post of Siksha Karmi Gr. 3, meaning thereby had the husband of petitioner qualification to be appointed his case could have been considered by Respondents No. 1 & 2. Rejection of application, Annexure P-3, was under challenge before this Court, unfortunately original petitioner, husband of present petitioner, also died on 07.08.2019 during pendency of this writ petition and the present petitioner was substituted as his legal representative, meaning thereby the petitioner has representated the state of deceased original petitioner. According to the Policy for compassionate appointment dated 14.06.2013, in particular ‘clause-5’, the daughter-in-law was added as dependent as eligible candidate for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. Though, this addition was made vide circular dated 30.04.2016 by the General Administration Department and the father-in-law of petitioner had died on 20.04.2016, but the fact remains that as the petitioner stepped into the shoes of his son (husband of petitioner) it cannot be said that she could be deprived of consideration of her case for compassionate appointment. 8. The issue with respect to consideration for compassionate appointment of daughter-in-law had come before this Court in the case of Smt. Duliya Bai Yadav (supra), wherein this Court in paragraph 17 has observed as under: “17. On marriage, wife becomes integral part of the husband's marital room entitled to equal status of husband as a member of the family and, therefore, a woman on marriage becomes a member of her matrimonial family and she has rights and obligations in the family. A daughter-in-law is considered, traditionally, as Grih Lakshmi of the family. The basic principles governing the roles of women in Hindu society were set-forth in the laws of Manu. This ancient code has specified that women 6 / 8 must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands and brothers-in-law who desired their own welfare. Manu Smriti states, “Where women are honoured, there the Gods are pleased. Where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.” The concept that daughter-in-law must come back and stay with her parents after death of husband is unknown to our civilized society. Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 also provides that daughter-in-law shall be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law. She is also held to be dependent under Section 21 (vii) of the said Act and Section 22 (1) of the said Act provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependents of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. Therefore, exclusion of daughter-in-law, that too widowed daughter-in-law from the fray of consideration based on compassion without taking into account the fact that whether she is dependent upon the deceased Government servant by the Government as a model employer and committed for the welfare of all the citizens of the State, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not only constitutionally impermissible in law, but is also a clearly retrograde consideration on the part of the State Government. The welfare policy of the State Government must extend to all the dependents of the deceased Government servant, it cannot be said that only son, daughter or unmarried daughter is dependent. In a given situation, like in the present case, the petitioner had already lost her husband before the death of her mother- in-law and was wholly dependent upon the earnings of her mother- in-law who also succumbed to death on 30-6-2011 and on account of exclusion from the policy, she is unable to get compassionate appointment by the State and its authorities.” 9. In almost identical set of facts, this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Jaiswal (supra) has observed that the case of petitioner therein ought to have been considered in accordance with the scheme for compassionate appointment applicable for the employees of the State Government rather than treating the father of petitioner to be an employee of the CIDC and 7 / 8 directed the State Government to consider the case of petitioner therein subject to his fulfilling other eligibility criteria under the scheme for compassionate appointment applicable to the Government employees. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Sajan Kumar Suryavanshi (supra). 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Premlata, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 30, in paragraph 10, has held as under: “10. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependants of a deceased dying-in-harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.” 11. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is the departure from regular scheme of appointment. But at the same time, a scheme has been formulated by the State Government being a welfare State to make the dependents of the deceased employee survive and not to leave them under the sky without any source of income. As it is held by this Court that the case of petitioner cannot be differentiated simply because she is daughter-in-law and the amendment is incorporated at later stage after the death of father-in-law of petitioner, but the right of son as has already been accrued would flow down in favour of petitioner. Therefore, it is not necessary that the petitioner would always be considered for appointment on a higher post rather she could 8 / 8 be considered on any other post for which she is holding such qualification. 12. In view of the above discussion, Respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment on any post either in the State Government or any State Instrumentality(ies) under their control for which petitioner is holding qualification. Let this exercise be done within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT) pwn JUDGE