Sunita Kaushik vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Sunita Kaushik, sought compassionate appointment following the death of her father, Anuj Ram Kaushik, who was a Peon in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Pandariya. Her application was rejected by Respondent No. 2, the District Registrar, on October 21, 2021, on the grounds that she was a married daughter and ineligible as per the existing policy. The petitioner's father died in harness on July 26, 2019. The petitioner's grievance is that the rejection was mechanical and she sought a direction for an inquiry into the maintenance by other family members. The State contended that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated August 29, 2016, if any family member is already employed in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. The State also relied on a Division Bench judgment in State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee.

Held

The Court held that the claim for compassionate appointment must be considered strictly in accordance with the policy prevailing at the time of consideration, and the Court cannot direct the grant of compassionate appointment in contravention of the applicable policy. Regarding Issue 1, the Court noted that it is an admitted position that the son of the deceased employee, Sunil Kumar Kaushik, is already in Government Service. Clause 6A of the circular dated August 29, 2016, provides that where any member of the family of the deceased Government servant is already employed in Government service, no other family member shall be entitled to compassionate appointment. The petitioner had neither challenged the validity of this policy nor questioned the applicability of Clause 6A. Regarding Issue 2, the Court referred to the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Muniya Mukharjee, which clearly held that an inquiry into the financial condition of dependents is not envisaged in the policy, and therefore, no such direction can be issued. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment as a married daughter, considering the policy dated August 29, 2016, and the definition of 'family' therein? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Court can direct an inquiry into the financial condition of other family members for compassionate appointment, contrary to the policy? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought a direction for an inquiry into the maintenance by family members, implying a need to assess financial dependency. She prayed for any other relief deemed fit. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that Clause 6A of the policy dated August 29, 2016, explicitly states that if any other member of the deceased government servant's family is already in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee, which held that the policy does not envisage an inquiry into the financial condition of other family members and eligibility must be strictly as per the policy.