1 2025:CGHC:14866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6751 of 2016 Devcharan Yadav S/o Kirtan Ram Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o Housing Board Colony, Qtr No. 876, Sector 5, Saddu Raipur, Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan Medical College Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Chief Conservator Of Forest Administration / Non Gazetted Office Of Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan Medical College Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Raipur Circle Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava with Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 27.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); 10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 17/06/2016 (Annexure P-1) whereby the application of the petitioner was rejected. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.04.08 12:00:42 +0530 2 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with law. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition. 2. The subject matter in a nutshell is that the father of the petitioner Late Kirtan Ram Yadav was working as Class IV employee against the post of peon at the office of Respondent No.4 and had served the department for about 28 years prior to his death on 24.11.2014. As per the policy of the State Government regarding compassionate appointment, the petitioner made application on 16.12.2014 with the consent of other dependents of Late Kirtan Ram Yadav. The respondent No.2 after receiving the application and the comments from the department finding that the mother of the petitioner was serving in Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation which is a semi Government body against the Class IV post sought guidance from the respondent No.1 regarding the entitlement and eligibility of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide letter dated 23.03.2015. Even though the name of the petitioner was recommended for being considered for compassionate appointment however during the pendency of the case of the petitioner under consideration and the mother of the petitioner also expired and as such the petitioner again submitted a reminder informing the respondent authority regarding the death of his mother and requested for granting compassionate appointment. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 30.06.2016, rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment without stating the reason of dis-entitlement of petitioner when he fulfills the requirement of being appointed in terms of compassionate appointment policy, therefore, the present petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner Lt. Kirtan Ram Yadav was working as Class IV employee at the office of respondent No. 4 and died in harness on 24.11.2014. The petitioner being son of the deceased employee made an application for compassionate appointment to respondent No. 4 on 16.12.2014 vide Annexure P/4. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 17.06.2016 Annexure P/1. He further submits that while rejecting the application, no specific grounds was given and simply it was stated that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed on compassionate appointment. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondent/competent authority may consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate appointment. To bolster his submissions he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K. reported in AIR 2025 SC 1232 and a judgment of this Court in case of Purendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR Online 2022 CHH 59. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s mother i.e. wife of the deceased employee is working with State Ware Housing Corporation and as per provisions contained in the policy for compassionate appointment dated 29.08.2016, the mother of the petitioner was earning person, therefore, the case of the petitioner should not have been considered. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment simply states that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been considered in accordance with law and he was not eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground also no 4 specific reasons have been assigned. The defence which has been taken by the respondent State in the return is that the mother of the petitioner is working in State Ware Housing Corporation, therefore, his entitlement for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. As such no conditions is envisaged in the policy dated 14.06.2013. Even otherwise such insertion has been brought by way of a circular dated 29.08.2016 R/1 i.e. after the death, filing of the application and rejection of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Even otherwise this ground was not mentioned in the order rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Division Bench of this Court in case Purendra Kumar Sinha (Supra) in paragraph 49 observed as under:- “Clause 6A rendered an applicant ineligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds if any member of the family of the deceased government employee is in government employment. Compassionate appointment has to be made strictly in accordance with the policy. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in absence of any stipulation in Clause 6A that any member of the family of the deceased government servant being in government service or in employment of autonomous bodies/bodies/Boards/Corporations, etc. of the State/Central Government or regular employment in any other service, rejection of the case of the appellant in WA No. 110/2020 on the ground that her brother is working in State Bank of India cannot be sustained. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in expanding the provision of Clause 6A to also include any other type of employment beyond the government service within the ambit of Clause 6A.” 5 7. As stated earlier that the working of petitioner’s mother in Ware House Corporation is not the reason assigned in the impugned order Annexure P/1. The respondent/State cannot be permitted to revive this ground in their defence. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.06.2016 Annexure P/1 is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of 60 days from the date of recept of copy of this order. 9. No cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari