ORDER : (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) : 1) Since an identical issue is involved in bunch of these cases, they are heard analogously and are being disposed off by this common order. 2) The petitioners by way of these writ petitions are challenging rejection of claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that one of the family members is in Government Service, in fact they are working as Shikshakarmi. WPS No. 1184 of 2022 3) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner – Deenanath Tiwari are that father of the petitioner Late Ramadhar Tiwari who was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department died in harness on 20.8.2007. The wife of the deceased i.e. mother of the petitioner moved an application on 9.10.2007 as also on 4.12.2007 for granting compassionate appointment to her younger son i.e. the petitioner before respondent No.5/SP, Bilaspur. However, by the impugned order dated 31.8.2012 respondent No.3/Assistant Inspector General of Police (Selection), PHQ, Raipur has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that his elder brother namely Kedar Nath Tiwari is already working on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III. Against that order, the petitioner along with his mother has preferred a writ petition i.e. WPS No.5906/2014 before this Court which has been disposed of by this Court on 16.7.2021 with a direction to the respondents to verify the dependency part of the petitioner and if it is found true that other family members are not giving any financial help or support to the petitioner and his sisters, then give him compassionate appointment in police department. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondent authorities and thereafter, on 28.10.2021 respondent No.3/Assistant Inspector General of Police (Welfare), PHQ, Raipur rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the same ground that his elder brother Kedar Nath Tiwari is working on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III in Government Primary School, Semra, Block-Kota, Distt. Bilaspur. WPS No. 1515 of 2019 4) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner – Yash Kumar Mishra are that father of the petitioner was working as Lecturer in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Manendragarh, Dist. Korea. He died on 2/2/2018 in harness by leaving the family members including the petitioner. Bilaspur. WPS No. 1515 of 2019 4) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner – Yash Kumar Mishra are that father of the petitioner was working as Lecturer in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Manendragarh, Dist. Korea. He died on 2/2/2018 in harness by leaving the family members including the petitioner. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was continuing his studies in B.E. in Shankara Group of Institute, Bhilai, but looking to the financial status of the family, as the father of the petitioner was suffering from Brain Cancer and whopping hard earned saving money of the family was used for treatment and even the old ailing grand parents are also staying with the petitioner, he left the studies in mid and moved an application on 13/3/2018 before the respondent No.5 seeking compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father. Along with the application, the petitioner submitted affidavit, educational qualification certificates, etc. It is submitted that at the time of submission of application by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, the petitioner's mother Smt. Sunita Mishra was working as Lecturer (Panchayat) and the said information was also given by the petitioner in his application. It is submitted that on the basis of application submitted by the petitioner and after due scrutiny of the same, on 10/8/2018 the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on the post of Grade III Clerk and posted at Higher Secondary School, Chittajhor Podi, Baikunthpur, District Korea. In compliance of the said order of appointment, the petitioner joined his services on 13/8/2018. The petitioner's mother was working as Lecturer (Panchayat) under the Zila Panchayat. Subsequently on 29/9/2018 the services of the mother of the petitioner were merged in the Department of School Education by naming the post as Teacher (LB) cadre. It is submitted that on 5/2/2019 the respondent No.5 asked the petitioner to give on affidavit stating therein whether any member of family is in Government service or not. The petitioner submitted an affidavit by stating that his mother is working as Lecturer (Panchayat). It is submitted that on 5/2/2019 the respondent No.5 asked the petitioner to give on affidavit stating therein whether any member of family is in Government service or not. The petitioner submitted an affidavit by stating that his mother is working as Lecturer (Panchayat). On 11/2/2019 again a notice was issued to the petitioner as well as his mother by the respondent No.5 contending that the services of mother of the petitioner have been merged in the School Education Department and working as Teacher (LB) w.e.f. 1/7/2018 vide order dated 29/9/2018 and sought explanation from the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner and his mother submitted explanation on 13/2/2019 that due to typographical mistake and error the word 'Teacher (LB)' was not mentioned in the affidavit submitted by the petitioner. In spite of the above, the District Education Officer canceled the appointment order dated 10/8/2018 and declared the same as void with the observation that the petitioner's mother is in the Government service. WPS No. 1565 of 2022 5) The brief facts of the case of the petitioners – Smt. Janki Sharma and Suman Tiwari are that husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 namely Shri Prakash Ram Murti Sharma was working on the post of Rural Health Organizer with the respondent No.4. He died in harness on 19.6.2019. After death of Shri Prakash Ram Murti Sharma, on 6.7.2019, his elder daughter namely Suman Tiwari (petitioner No.2) submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities but vide impugned order dated 16.11.2021 respondent No.3/CMHO, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, rejected the claim of petitioner No.2 Suman Tiwari for compassionate appointment on the ground that her younger brother namely Raman Kumar Sharma, who is also a family member of the deceased employee, is working on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-l in the subject of Biology in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker (CG). 6) The State has filed return mainly contending that as per Clause 6A of the Policy dated 23.02.2019 issued by the General Administration Department it has been prescribed that if any member of the family of the deceased employee is already in Government job then no other family members will be eligible for compassionate appointment. Applying the said clause either the appointment orders have been cancelled or no appointment order has been issued. Applying the said clause either the appointment orders have been cancelled or no appointment order has been issued. It has also been contended that the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 91/2022 (State of C.G. vs. Kevra Bai) decided on 23.02.2022 and Writ Appeal No. 33/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Muniya Bai) decided on 18.02.2022 has held that no factual inquiry with regard to fact whether other family member who is in government service is providing assistance to the member of the deceased family is required in view of the provisions of the Policy. It has also been contended that earlier the Policy with regard to grant of compassionate appointment was issued by the State on 14.06.2013 wherein certain amendments were made on 29.08.2016. By the said amendment / addition in the policy it has been provided that any member of the family of the deceased government servant is already in government service then no other family member is entitled to get compassionate appointment. 7) The respondents have not disputed the facts with regard to cancellation of the appointment or denial of the appointment order and reasons assigned to it. 8) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents have committed illegality either in cancelling the appointment order or in not grating compassionate appointment on the count that one of the family members is in government service. In fact, the family members are Shiskhakarmi therefore, they cannot be treated at par with Government Servant as such the impugned orders have been passed in total disregard to the Policy, thus, they would pray for quashing of the impugned order. 9) The petitioner in WPS No. 1184/2022 has filed additional document on record and have submitted copy of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 4761/2014 decided on 26.08.2022 wherein this Court has directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment as per policy prevailing at the time of death of the deceased employee as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orrissa and Others {2022 SCC OnLine SC 684}. 10) Counsel for the petitioner in WPS No. 1184/2022 and WPS No. 1515/2019 would submit that the impugned orders are illegal and against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 215/2017 {Harnarayan Yadav vs. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and others} decided on 07.01.2019 wherein it has been held that Shiksha Karmi is not a holder of the civil post and cannot be treated to be a government servant to deprive the benefit of age relaxation. They have also referred to judgment of Coordinate Bench passed of this Court in WPS No. 6828/2021 wherein the Coordinate Bench has held that the Shiksha Karmi are not the holder of the civil post under the State therefore, they are not the government servant. 11) Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aman Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioner in WPS No. 1565/2022 would submit that the petitioner joined his service on 29.09.2018 and he was asked to give affidavit whether any member of the family is in government service or not and thereafter without considering the reply the impugned order dated 14.02.2019 has been passed which suffers from non-application of mind, perversity and illegality. 12) The learned counsel for the State would reiterate the stand taken by them in their return and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. 13) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14) From the above discussion, the point emerged for determination of this Court is :- (I) whether the petitioner’s family members who are working as Shikshakarmi are government servant or not? (ii) whether the action of the respondents is justified in canceling the appointment or not issuing appoint order to the petitioners on compassionate ground on the count that petitioners’ family members are working as Shikshakarmi are justified or not? The finding on Point No. 1. 15) It is not in dispute that the Shikhsakarmis were appointed under Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shikshakarmi (Recruitment and Condition of service) Rules, 2007. The said rules have been notified under the power exercised under Section 70(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhinium, 1993. The said Section 70 of the Act, 1993 provides for officer and servant of the Panchayat and accordingly the petitioners’ family members were appointed as Shikshakarmi. The said rules have been notified under the power exercised under Section 70(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhinium, 1993. The said Section 70 of the Act, 1993 provides for officer and servant of the Panchayat and accordingly the petitioners’ family members were appointed as Shikshakarmi. This issue whether the Shikshakarmi is government servant or not has already been considered by the Hon’ble Divisoin Bench in case of Harnarayan Yadav (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held as under :- 20. In exercise of power conferred under Section 70 of the Act of 1993, the Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)Rules, 2007 was notified by the State. The said Rule gives power to the Panchayat to make selection and appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Karmior a Panchayat Teacher. 21. Keeping the totality of the various constitutional provisions and the corresponding enactments including the Act of 1993 and the 2007 Rules13relating to appointment of the Panchayat Teachers, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the same conclusion as the learned Single Judge that the Appellant cannot be treated as a Government Servant as he is not holderof a civil post under the State but an appointee of a Panchayat which is an independent entity and has its own enactments and rules governing such appointees. The concession therefore which had been provided for in the advertisement of age relaxation of additional three years to a government servant cannot be extended to the Appellant as he is not holder of a civil post under the State and cannot be treated to be a government servant to derive the benefit of age relaxation.” 16) Thus from the above stated legal position, it is quite vivid that the petitioners’ family members are Shikshakarmis, as such, they were not the government servants when they were initially appointed. Therefore, the point No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners. However, it is made clear that subsequently on absorption with the School Education Department as per the Policy dated 01.07.2018, the Shikshakarmis in the State of Chhattisgarh have become the employees of the School Education Department as such, when the impugned orders were passed they had become government servant. However, it is made clear that subsequently on absorption with the School Education Department as per the Policy dated 01.07.2018, the Shikshakarmis in the State of Chhattisgarh have become the employees of the School Education Department as such, when the impugned orders were passed they had become government servant. Point No. 2 17) To answer this question it is expedient for this Court to extract the law with regard to compassionate appointment, its object and purpose for which the compassionate appointment is granted to the family member of the deceased government servant who died in harness. The object of grant of compassionate appointment has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Hon’ble Supreme Court in in case of Bank Of Baroda vs Baljit Singh {2023 SCC OnLine SC 745} has held as under:- 12. It is necessary to reiterate that the appointment of a candidate on compassionate basis does not create any vested right and that it is only when a candidate is covered under all clauses of the Scheme applicable at the relevant point of time that he/she could be considered for compassionate appointment. 13. In Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2000) 6 SCC 493 , it was observed that the family benefit scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of deceased employee on the facts therein was not a substitute for compassionate appointment by the Steel Authority of India – Respondent in the said case. The said case proceeds on its own facts. The said judgment can be distinguished from the facts of the instant case as the 1998 Scheme specifically disentitles a candidate for compassionate appointment benefit on the application of the formula for calculation of monthly income if the same is less than 60% of the total emoluments which the deceased was drawing at the time of his death. The object is that it is only when a deceased employee’s family is in penury and without any source of livelihood when the employee died in harness, compassionate appointment can be considered. Since appointment on compassionate basis is an exception to the general rule for appointment by an open invitation, the exception has to be resorted to only when the candidate and his family is in penury so as to provide immediate succor on the death of the employee in harness. Since appointment on compassionate basis is an exception to the general rule for appointment by an open invitation, the exception has to be resorted to only when the candidate and his family is in penury so as to provide immediate succor on the death of the employee in harness. The same has been observed in General Manager(D&PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary (supra). In N.C.Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka(supra) a three Judge Bench of this Court reiterated that appointment on compassionate basis is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules and Schemes applicable must be satisfied by all aspirants. Therefore, the case for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent Scheme. Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumar, (supra), this Court has observed that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule, the dependents of deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy of compassionate appointment and they must fulfil the terms of the policy which are framed by the States/Employers. 18) Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Prohlad Guha {2024 INC 563 (Civil Appeal No. 4434-4437 of 2014 decided on 01.08.2024} has examined the object and need to grant compassionate appointment and held as under :- 6.2 The principle of compassionate appointment has been stated by this Court in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon, as follows- “8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930]. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 6.3 The relationship of ‘compassionate appointment’ with constitutional principles has been discussed in SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, wherein it was held that “15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor viz. that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right. (See SBI v. Anju Jain [ (2008) 8 SCC 475 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 724], SCC para 33.)” 19) Now coming to the factual matrix of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners’ family members are working as Shikshakarmi as such, it cannot be said that deceased employees died in harness entitled the petitioners to get compassionate appointment. Even the retiral dues of the Government Servant along with emoluments earned by the family members of the Shikshakarmi who are now government servant cannot be said to be insufficient to fall the petitioners within the ambit of sudden financial crisis or penury. The financial crisis or penury is basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government regarding grant of compassionate appointment. The financial crisis or penury is basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government regarding grant of compassionate appointment. As such, the action of the respondents in canceling the appointment or not issuing appoint order to the petitioners on compassionate ground are justified on the count that petitioners’ family members are working as Shikshakarmi who are not government servant still they are in gainful employment and it cannot be held that petitioners are having sudden financial or pecuniary crisis, as such, the impugned orders are legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity which warrants interference by this Court. 20) Accordingly, the bunch of these writ petitions deserve to be and are dismissed.