Jyoti Goswami v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 31 of 2019 • Jyoti Goswami D/o Late Bhuvneshwar Giri Goswami Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Milk Dairy Kotra Road, Besides Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director General Of Police Chhattgisgarh, Police Headquarters, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Inspector General Of Police Police Headquarters Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh -----Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :
Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents/State :
Shri Faiz Kazi, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 06.03.2019 1.
Writ application of the appellant/petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with order of rejection by the respondents on the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that two of the family members are already in employment ie two brothers of the present appellant are already in government employment. 2.
After having considered the details of the arguments and submissions, the Hon'ble Single Judge was of the opinion that merely on taking the plea that brothers are living separately or that she is a divorcee now will not become a ground for providing compassionate appointment or
wa 31 of 2019 employment to all the family members. Compassionate appointment is not a method for obtaining back room appointment under the respondentsState authorities. The object is to provide immediate relief to the family. 3.
The facts being what they are, even if the factum of delay in challenging the order of rejection is ignored, it is not a fit case where compassionate appointment should be extended to the appellant as the family is nowhere in financial distress as there are two brothers who are government servants.
4.
Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge padma