1 2026:CGHC:16870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3218 of 2022 * - Mehtab Singh S/o Moris Singh Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Mission Compound Mother Terrsa Ward Jagdalpur,, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Manager, E.B.A. Mission School Jagdalpur,, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha and Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocates For Respondents No. 1 & 2 / State For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 14.09.2019 (Annexure P-2), in the interest of justice. 10(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate and allow the petitioner from continuing earlier service with all consequential benefit within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. 10(iii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant salary of the petitioner from Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.15 11:50:16 +0530 2 date of joining 14.09.2018 to the date of removal 14.09.2019 in the interest of justice. 10(iv) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that mother of the petitioner namely Rubeel Dorthy Singh, who was working on the post of Assistant Teacher in E.B.A. Mission Primary School Jagdalpur (Government Aided School) died in harness on 28.10.2016. He would submit that an application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner and subsequently the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Siksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 06.09.2018. He would contend that the petitioner joined on the said post on 14.09.2018, but subsequently said order was recalled vide order dated 05.07.2019 on the ground that on the date of consideration wife of the petitioner was working on the post of Siksha Karmi Grade-III in the same school, whereas father of the petitioner was clerk in the forest department. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner was dependent on the income of the deceased and therefore, the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities that the wife of the petitioner was also working on the post of Siksha Karmi Grade-III appears to be erroneous. He would contend that it is settled principles of law that Siksha Karmi is not a government post. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that on the date of consideration and even on the date of issuance of order of 3 appointment in favour of the petitioner, father of the petitioner namely Moris Singh was working on the post of clerk in the forest department and therefore, the order of appointment was subsequently cancelled. They would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The mother of the petitioner died on 28.10.2016, the petitioner was offered appointment on 06.09.2018 and on said date father of the petitioner was working with the government on the post of clerk in the forest department, who retired on 31.10.2018, therefore, it can safely held that on the date of consideration and even on the date of issuance of appointment order in favour of the petitioner, his father was in government service and thus, on the said date the petitioner was not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment according to Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016. 6. In the matter of in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate 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 4 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." 7. In the present case, father of the petitioner was in government service and at the same time, wife of the petitioner was posted on the post of Siksha Karmi Grade-III in the school, where the petitioner was offered appointment. 8. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Education Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar dated 05.07.2019. 9. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti