KUSH KUMAR LASHKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 6/7/2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No. 3-The Joint Director, Directorate of Higher Education Department, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground owing to the sad demise of his father, namely, Balram Prasad Lashkar, has been rejected.

(2.) From perusal of the record, it appears that the father of the petitioner namely, Balram Prasad Lashkar, was working as Peon in Government Gajanan Madhav Muktibodh College, Sahaspur-Lohara, District Kabirdham and died during his service on 24.04.2019. Said Balram Prasad Lashkar had two sons namely, Love Kumar Lashkar and the present Petitioner Kush Kumar Lashkar. It appears further that the elder brother of the Petitioner is admittedly in government job and according to the Petitioner, he (Love Kumar Lashkar) is living separately after his marriage without assisting any kind of livelihood to the Petitioner and his mother. It appears further that the Petitioner was living with his father and after the death of father, the mother of the Petitioner is living along with him. Owing to the sad demise of his father, the Petitioner submitted an application on 3/6/2019 seeking appointment on compassionate ground and, while filing an application, the Petitioner has submitted the relevant documents including affidavit of other family members as well as Love Kumar Lashkar, who has specifically stated in is affidavit that he is living separately along with his wife and children and is not concerned with the Petitioner and his mother. It appears further that the application so made by the Petitioner was, however, rejected by the concerned authority on the ground that the brother of the Petitioner, namely, Love Kumar Lashkar is already in government job and as per the policy of compassionate appointment, the claim for compassionate appointment would not be considered if one of the members is already in government employment in the family of the claimants. While observing as such, the petitioner's application seeking his appointment on compassionate ground has been refused which has been questioned herein mainly on the ground that the order impugned has been passed without considering his dependency upon his father, therefore, it is contended by Shri Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the order impugned deserves to be set aside. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Sulochana Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others decided on 23.11.2017 in WPS No. 2728/2017.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Verma, while supporting the order impugned submits that since one of the members, namely, Love Kumar Lashkar is already in government job, the order impugned, therefore, does not require to be interfered with, as per the Government Policy.