1 CGHC010162382022 2026:CGHC:28701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3564 of 2022 * - Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Anendra Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tenganmada, Tehsil Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Saluja, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the order dated 20/30.03.2022 (ANNEXURE P/1) issued by the District Education Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.). 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to re-instate the service of the petitioner, with back wages. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to set aside/quash the rule 6(a) of the Circular no. F 7-1/2019/1-3 dated 23.02.2019 (ANNEXURE P/2). 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.10 18:51:20 +0530 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Grade-III died in harness on 12.04.2021. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment and his application was allowed by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 02.06.2021 and the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher Grade-III. A show cause notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 which was duly replied and thereafter respondent No. 2 vide order dated 29/30.03.2022 issued an order of termination of services against the petitioner, inter alia on the ground that he suppressed the fact that one of the family member of the deceased-government servant is in service. 3. Mr. Ishan Saluja would submit that brother of the petitioner who is in government service is a married one and staying alongwith his wife and children separately and he never financially assisted the family (the petitioner and his mother). He would contend that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was provided, therefore, order dated 29/30.03.2022 Annexure P/1 is bad-in-law. He would submit that as the petitioner was regular employee, the authority concerned should have conducted a full fledge departmental enquiry before issuance of order impugned. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. Mr. Sharma would submit that issue with regard to financial dependency, no enquiry is required as held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee). He would contend that as the petitioner suppressed the fact that his brother is already in government service, 3 therefore, the respondent No. 2 rightly terminated the services of the petitioner. He would refer the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Smt. Sweta Singh in Writ Appeal No. 199 of 2022, dated 19.09.2022. He would contend that as there was suppression of material fact, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. It is a case where the petitioner concealed the fact that his brother is in government service and he applied for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of his father. The application moved by the petitioner was considered and allowed by the respondent No. 2 and he was offered appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher Grade-III vide order dated 02.06.2021. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted wherein it was found that the brother of the petitioner is already in government service and show cause notice was issued which was duly replied by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 considered the fact that the brother of the petitioner is already in government service, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment according to Clause 6(A) of the Policy for grant of compassionate appointment and cancelled / terminated the services of the petitioner. 7. With regard to financial dependency, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Muniya Mukharjee (supra), while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate 4 appointments, has clearly held that if any member of the family of a deceased married government servant is already in government service, no other member of the family is eligible for compassionate appointment. The relevant portion of Clause 6A reads as under: "13. Clause 6A of the Scheme reads as follows: "6A. In the family of the deceased married government servant, if any other member of the family is already in government service, then the other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Explanation. Dependents of the family of deceased married and unmarried government servant shall include the following members: A) In case of married government servant – Dependent mother, dependent parents, widow/widower, son and daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) mother, brother and sister." 15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would go to show that it does not envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment." 8. In the matter of Smt. Sweta Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in Para-18 has categorically held that the policy provides 5 that if any other member of the family is already in government service, then the other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 9. With regard to suppression of material facts and cancellation of appointment or termination of services, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Ratan Yadav [Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 306 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 306], has held that suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the employee in relation to his continuance in service. A candidate having suppressed the material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continuance in service." 10. Having considered the facts discussed above and the reasons assigned by the respondent No. 2 in the order impugned, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti