Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 8 (CHH)

Vijay Nigam v. State Government of Chhattisgarh

2022-01-05

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Smt. Radhika Nigam, wife of Shri Rameshchandra Nigam, while working in the post of Medicine Maker with respondent No. 2, died in harness on 13.06.2014. Petitioner, being the brother of deceased Radhika Nigam, on the strength of Will dated 17.04.2014 executed by Radhika Nigam in his favour, is claiming compassionate appointment from respondent No. 2 by way of this writ petition. 2. Mr. U.R. Koshaley, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that respondent No. 2 is absolutely unjustified in not considering the case of the petitioner and not granting compassionate appointment to him being the brother of deceased Radhika Nigam in terms of Circular dated 14.06.2013 issued by the State Government. He would further submit that on the basis of the Will dated 17.04.2014 executed by Radhika Nigam in favour of the petitioner, he is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel, would submit that petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is barred by Clause 5¼d½ of the Circular dated 14.06.2013 issued by the State Government as on account of death of a married Government servant, his/her widowed husband/wife would be entitled for compassionate appointment. In the instant case, since deceased Radhika Madan was already married, her widowed husband would be entitled for compassionate appointment, as such, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, Smt. Radhika Madan was married to one Rameshchandra Nigam when she died in harness on 13.06.2014 while working on the post of Medicine Maker with respondent No. 2. Petitioner, being the brother of deceased Radhika Madan, is claiming compassionate appointment on the death of her sister. The issue herein is governed by Clause 5 of Circular dated 14.06.2013 issued by the State Government. 6. Petitioner, being the brother of deceased Radhika Madan, is claiming compassionate appointment on the death of her sister. The issue herein is governed by Clause 5 of Circular dated 14.06.2013 issued by the State Government. 6. For the sake of convenience, Clauses 5 and 6 of the Circular dated 14.06.2013 being relevant, are reproduced herein-below: ^^5- vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq ik= mEehnokj & fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifjokj ds fuEufyf[kr O;Ld lnL;ksa esa ls fdlh ,d lnL; dks uhps nf'kZr Øekuqlkj vFkkZr ¼d½ ds vLohdkj djus ij ;k ik= u gksus ij ¼[k½ dks ,oa mlds i'pkr blh vuqØe esa vkxs ¼x½] ¼?k½ ,oa ¼Mh½ dh vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq Øe'k% fopkj fd;k tk,xk %& ¼d½ fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh fo/kok@fo/kqjA ¼[k½ iq=@nRrd iq=A ¼x½ vfookfgr iq=h@vfookfgr nRrd iq=hA ¼?k½ vkfJr fo/kok iq=h@vkfJr nRrd fo/kok iq=hA ¼³½ vkfJr rykd'kqnk iq=h@vkfJr rykd'kqnk nRrd iq=hA 6- vfookfgr 'kkldh; lsod ds fu/ku gksus ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr & ,sls 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q gksus ij] tks vfookfgr gS ¼vFkok fo/kqj gS vkSj mlds dksbZ iq=@iq=h ugha gS½ rks ,sls fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ¼ekrk@firk dh vuq'kalk ij½ HkkbZ@vfookfgr cgu dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gksxhA** 7. A careful perusal of the aforesaid clauses would show that on death of a married deceased Government servant, his/her widowed husband/wife would be entitled for compassionate appointment and in their absence, the son/adopted son would be entitled. Clause 6 of the Circular clearly shows that in case the Government Servant is unmarried, his/her brother would be entitled for compassionate appointment. 8. In the instant case, since deceased Radhika Madan was already married to one Rameshchandra Madan when she died in harness on 13.06.2014, therefore, her husband would be entitled for compassionate appointment by virtue of Clause 5¼d½ of Circular dated 14.06.2013 issued by the State Government and the petitioner, being deceased Radhika Madan's brother, would thus not be entitled for compassionate appointment. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 9. The instant writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.