1 2025:CGHC:59100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13639 of 2025 Navnit Ekka S/o Late Rajesh Ekka Aged About 30 Years R/o Madhuvan Toli, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State : Mr. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the District Education Officer, District Jashpur by which the petitioner’s appointment on the basis of compassionate ground has been cancelled and the District Education Officer has directed to recovery entire salary paid to the petitioner from pension payable to wife of deceased Rajesh Ekka namely Smt. Saraswati Ekka (mother of the petitioner). BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.12.11 11:14:04 +0530 2 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner’s father Rajesh Ekka was working as Headmaster in the School Education Department, Jashpur and died in harness on 10.06.2021. The petitioner after obtaining No Objection from his family members applied for grant of compassionate appointment before the authorities but his representation vide letter dated 28.06.2021 has been rejected by the District Education Officer relying upon Clause 6 of the circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh according to which if any other member of the family of the deceased government servant is already in government service, then any other family member will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Thereafter the said rejection order was recalled by the present District Education Officer and he considered the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment vide order dated 06.10.2021. Thereafter, on complaint made against the petitioner the present District Education Officer, Jashpur constituted a committee and as per the fact finding enquiry constituted by the Committee it has been found that two sisters and one brother of the petitioner is already in government service though they are married and living separately but since one of the family member is in government service as such vide order dated 04.11.2025 the appointment of the petitioner has been canceled and termination order was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on above factual matrix would submit that once the appointment order has been issued in favor of the petitioner, then it was not incumbent upon authority or the District Education Officer to cancel the appointment order but no termination order should be passed against the petitioner. He would further submit 3 that so far as recovery of salary from pension of the petitioner’s mother is also void ab initio as according to him no recovery can be made as per the Pension Rules, 1972 and would pray for allowing the instant petition. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that the petitioner’s two sisters and one brother are already in government service prior to death of their father or they are residing separately from their family after marriage does not dilute the situation that if one family of the deceased government employee is in government service then other family members are not entitled to get compassionate appointment. She would further submit that the compassionate appointment has to be strictly considered in accordance with Clause mentioned in the circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh and the Court has limited power to add or substract in the compassionate policy. She would further submit that so far as cancellation of the appointment order and termination cannot be said to be illegal. She would further submit that since the petitioner’s appointment was void ab initio, therefore recovery of salary from pension is legal, justified and would pray for dismissing the instant petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner’s two sisters and one brother are in government service and Clause 6 of the circular dated 23.02.2019 is issued prior to death of government servant which specifically provides that if one of the family member is in government service then any other member will not be eligible to get employment on the basis of 4 compassionate appointment. 7. The said issue whether one of the family member is in government job then dependent of the deceased employee to get compassionate appointment or not has been examined by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Umesh Thakur decided in WA No. 236 of 2022 on 21.06.2023 wherein it has been held at paragraphs 15 & 16 as under: “15. In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra), Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) and the reference answered by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha (supra) answering the issue involved in this reference and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Parkash Chand’s case (supra) and Nitin's case (supra), compassionate appointment has to be granted in accordance with the policy applicable and where the policy applicable for compassionate appointment clearly indicates that where one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service then other members of the family of the deceased Government servant would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, then the writ court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct to hold for enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family members of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by another member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rewording / revising the terms of the applicable policy for compassionate appointment, which, in our considered opinion, is wholly impermissible in law. Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated question as 5 under:- When one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing/rewording of the terms of the applicable scheme/policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred. 16. In conclusion, we hold that Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) was rightly decided by Division Bench of this Court laying down the correct law. The reference is answered accordingly.” 8. In light of the above position of law, it is crystal clear that the petitioner’s two sisters and one brother are already in government service, therefore, they cannot claim any compassionate appointment, as such the order dated 04.11.2025 so far as declining the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of compassionate ground termination is said to be legal, justified and does not warrant interference. 9. However, it is made clear that the petitioner’s services have been terminated on account of cancellation of compassionate appointment this will not debar the petitioner from securing further employment in government service or any other establishment as no charge of mis- 6 conduct has been leveled against him which dis-entitled the petitioner to get appointment in government service in accordance with law. 10. Further, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery of salary from pension is illegal is being considered by this Court. As per the Pension Rule, 1972 there is no provision for recovery from pension or family pension. The Rule 9 of the Pension Rule, 1972 reads as under: ^*fu;e 9- isU'ku dks jksdus vFkok okil ysus dk jkT;iky dk vf/kdkj ¼Right to Governor to withhold or withdraw Pension½& ¼1½ isU'kuj }kjk mldh lsok ds nkSjku ftlesa lsokfuo`fRr ds i'pkr~ iqufuZ;qfDr ij dh xbZ lsok Hkh 'kkfey gS] foHkkxh; vFkok U;k;ky;hu dk;Zokgh esa ftlesa ;g ik;k tk; fd isU'kuj xEHkhj nqjkpj.k vFkok ykijokgh dk nks"kh gS] 'kklu dks igq¡pkbZ xbZ /ku lEcU/kh gkfu] ;fn dksbZ gks] ds fy, LFkk;h :i ls vFkok fdlh fofufnZ"V vof/k ds fy;s isU'ku vFkok mlds fdlh va'k dks jksdus ds fy;s isU'ku okil ysus vkSj iw.kZ vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fy;s jkT;iky Lo;a ds vf/kdkj lqjf{kr j[krs gSa% ijUrq ;g fd vfUre vkns'k ikfjr djus ds iwoZ jkT; yksd lsok vk;ksx ls ijke'kz fd;k tk;sxk% ijUrq vkxs ;g vkSj Hkh fd tgka isa'ku dk dksbZ va'k jksdk vFkok okil fy;k tkrk gS] rks ,slh /kujkf'k U;wure isa'ku tSlk fd le;≤ ij 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tkos] ls de ugha gksxh ¼2½ ¼d½ foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ka ;fn 'kkldh; lsod ds lsok esa jgrs gq, pkgs lsokfuo`fRr ds iwoZ vFkok mldh iqufuZ;qfDr ds nkSjku lafLFkr dh xbZ gksa rks bl fu;e ds v/khu 'kkldh; lsod ds lsokfuo`fRr ds i'pkr~ Hkh dk;Zokfg;ka pkyw ekuh tkosaxh vkSj os ftl izkf/kdkjh }kjk izkjEHk dh xbZ Fkha mlh ds }kjk vkSj mlh izdkj ls tSlk fd 'kkldh; lsod lsok esa jgrk( pkyw jgsaxh vkSj fuf.kZr dh tkosaxh% ijUrq ;g fd tgka foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ka jkT;iky ds v/khuLFk fdlh izkf/kdkjh }kjk lafLFkr dh xbZ gSa rks og izkf/kdkjh mlds fu"d"kksZa dks vafdr dj jkT;iky dks izfrosnu izLrqr djsxkA ¼[k½ ;fn 'kkldh; lsod ds lsok esa jgrs gq, pkgs lsokfuo`fRr ds iwoZ vFkok mldh iqufuZ;qfDr ds nkSjku] foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lafLFkr ugha dh xbZ gS rks& ¼i½ jkT;iky dh Lohd`fr ds cxSj lafLFkr ugha dh tkosxh( ¼ii½ ,sls laLFkkiu ds iwoZ pkj o"kZ ds ifgys ?kfVr fdlh ?kVuk ds ckjs esa 7 ugha gksxh( rFkk ¼iii½ foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ksa dks ykxw izfØ;k ds vuqlkj] ,sls izkf/kdkjh }kjk vkSj ,sls LFkku ij lapkfyr dh tkosaxh] tSlk 'kklu funsZf'kr djsa& ¼v½ ftlesa 'kkldh; lsod dks mldh lsok ds nkSjku ds laca/k esa lsok ls inP;qr djus dk vkns'k fn;k tk ldrk gS] ml ekeys esa tc isa'ku vFkok mlds Hkkx dks pkgs LFkkbZ :i ls ;k fufnZ"V vof/k ds fy;s jksduk vFkok okil ysuk izLrkfor Fkk( vFkok ¼c½ ftlesa ;fn mldh isa'ku ls 'kklu dks igqapkbZ xbZ vkfFkZd gkfu dh iw.kZ vFkok Hkkx dh olwyh dk vkns'k izLrkfor fd;k x;k Fkk 'kkldh; lsod dks mldh lsok ds laca/k esa mldh ykijokgh vFkok vkns'k Hkax ds dkj.k gqbZ vkfFkZd gkfu dh iw.kZ vFkok Hkkx dks mlds osru ls olwy djus dk vkns'k fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼3½ 'kkldh; lsod tc lsok esa Fkk] pkgs mldh lsokfuo`fRr ds vFkok mldh iqufuZ;qfDr ds igys mRiUu okn&dkj.k ds ckjs esa vFkok ,sls laLFkkiu ds pkj o"kZ ls vf/kd igys ?kfVr fdlh ?kVuk ds ckjs esa U;kf;d dk;Zokgh lafLFkr ugha dh tkosxhA ¼4½ mu ekeys esa tgka 'kkldh; lsod vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q ij igqapus ;k vU;Fkk ls lsokfuo`fRr gqvk gS] rFkk ftlds fo:) dksbZ foHkkxh; ;k U;kf;d dk;Zokfg;ka lafLFkr gSa vFkok tgka foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ka mifu;e ¼2½ ds v/khu fujUrj gSa] vufUre isa'ku vksj e`R;q lg&lsokfuo`fRr minku] tSlk fu;e 64 esa micaf/kr gS] eatwj gksxk% ijUrq ;g fd tgka foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ka lafLFkr djus ds iwoZ gh 'kkldh; lsod dks mldh isa'ku vafre :i ls Lohd`r dh tk pqdh gS] rks jkT;iky] fyf[kr vkns'k }kjk] ,slh foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ka lafLFkr djus dh frfFk ls bl izdkj Lohd`r ias'ku dk ipkl izfr'kr] bl 'krZ ds lkFk jksd ldrk gS fd ,slh jksd ds ckn isa'ku U;wure isa'ku tSlk fd le;≤ ij 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tkos] ls de ugha gksxh% ijUrq ;g vkSj Hkh fd] tgka foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh fnukad 25&10&1978 ds iwoZ lafLFkr gqbZ gks rks izFke ijUrqd bl izdkj ls izHkko'khy gksxk tSls Þ,slh dk;Zokgh lafLFkr gksus ds fnukad lsÞ 'kCnksa ds fy;s Þmi;qZDr nf'kZr frfFk ls 30 fnuksa ls vf/kd foyEc gksus ds fnukad ls izHkko'khy gksxkÞ 'kCn izfrLFkkfir Fks% ijUrq ;g vkSj Hkh fd& ¼d½ ;fn foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lafLFkr gksus ds fnukad ls ,d o"kZ esa iw.kZ ugha gksrh gS rks mi;qZDr ,d o"kZ dh vof/k O;rhr gks tkus ds 8 i'pkr` jksdh xbZ isU'ku dk 50 izfr'kr iqu% LFkkfir gks tkosxkA ¼[k½ ;fn foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lafLFkr gksus dh frfFk ls nks o"kZ dh vof/k esa iw.kZ ugha gksrh gS rks mi;qZDr nks o"kZ dh vof/k O;rhr gksus ds i'pkr~ jksdh xbZ isU'ku dh iw.kZ /kujkf'k iqu% LFkkfir gks tkosxh( ¼x½ ;fn foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vafre vkns'k isU'ku dks jksdus vFkok okil ysus vFkok mlesa ls dksbZ olwyh djus ds fy;s ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS rks ,slk vkns'k foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lafLFkr gksus dh frfFk ls gh izHkko'khy gqvk le>k tkosxk vkSj isU'ku dh /kujkf'k tks vc rd jksdh xbZ gS] fu;e 43 ds mifu;e ¼2½ esa fofgr lhekvksa ds v/khu] vfUre vkns'k dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj lek;ksftr dh tkosxhA ¼5½ tgka 'kklu] isa'ku dks jksdus vFkok okil ysus dk fu.kZ; ugha djrk gS] cfYd isa'ku ls vkfFkZd {kfr dh olwyh ds fy;s vknsf'kr djrk gS rks 'kkldh; lsod dh lsok fuo`fRr dh frfFk ij Lohdk;Z isa'ku dh ,d frgkbZ ls vf/kd dh nj ls mldh olwyh ugha dh tkosxhA ¼6½ bl fu;e ds mn~ns'; gsrq& ¼,½ ftl fnukad dks 'kkldh; lsod vFkok isa'kuj dks vkjksi&i= tkjh fd;k tkrk gS vFkok ;fn 'kkldh; lsod iwoZ frfFk ls gh fuyEcu esa gS rks ml frfFk ls foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lafLFkr dh xbZ ekuh tkosxh( ¼ch½ U;kf;d dk;Zokgh lafLFkr ekuh tk;sxh& ¼i½ vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh ds izdj.k esa ml frfFk ls ftl fnu iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks f'kdk;r vFkok fjiksVZ dh tkrh gS( ftl ij fd eftLVªsV laKku ysrk gS( vkSj ¼ii½ nhokuh dk;Zokfg;ksa ds izdj.k esa og frfFk tc U;k;ky; esa okn&i= izLrqr fd;k tkrk gSA^* 11. From bare perusal of Rule 9 and the contents of the impugned order, it is quite vivid that the procedure for withholding or withdrawing of the pension has not been followed, therefore, I am of the view that recovery of salary from family pension of wife of deceased government servant is illegal and is liable to be set-aside and accordingly it is set- aside. 9 12. Accordingly the instant writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 so far as it relates to cancellation of appointment order and termination is legal and does not warrant interference and so far as recovery part is concerned, the said is illegal and it is quashed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika