1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 927 of 2023 Kunal Kashyap S/o Shri Budhram Kashyap Aged About 19 Years R/o House Of Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Village Giddha, Post Semra, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. versus 1 - State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Chhattisgarh Ayurved Yog And Prakritik Chikitsa, Yunani, Siddhi And Homyopaithi (Aayush) Raipur Chhatttisgarh. 3 - District Ayurved Officer Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Ayurved Officer Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/ Respondents : Shri Hrishikesh Sharma, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.02.17 11:18:46 +0530 2 11/02/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.08.2020 passed by Respondent No.3 by which, claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order dated 15.08.2020 passed by respondent no.3 and direct the respondent concerned no.4 to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, within stipulated period. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that by way of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 15.08.2020 passed by the respondent no.3, whereby rejected claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, on the ground that, the one member of family of deceased employee is a government servant, the present impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 is without jurisdiction, because petitioner's mother was working under the control of respondent no.4, therefore cancelling and rejecting claim of the petitioner by the respondent no.3 is without jurisdiction. That, the mother of the petitioner namely Late, Smt. Santoshi Kashyap was working under the respondents as 3 Oshadhaalay (Dispensary) Sevak at Govt. Ayurved Oshadhaalay, Kura, District-Bemetara, during service his mother died in harness on 12.09.2016, at the time of death of his mother, petitioner was minor and his age was just 14 years, after attaining majority, he moved an application for compassionate appointment, before office of respondent no.4. The petitioner moved an application before respondent no. 3 and 4, the mother of the petitioner was Class-IV employees and was posted/working under the jurisdiction of respondent no.4, but the respondent no.3 called entire documents and rejected claim of the petitioner, on the ground that already one member is govt servant, whereas petitioner specific mentioned in his application that he is residing separately and his father not maintaining dependent of deceased employee. The petitioner and his brother totally depend on meternal uncle, namely Ashok Kumar Kashyap. That, the father of the petitioner namely Shri Bhudhram living separately before death of petitioner's mother and just after death of petitioner's mother he performed marriage with Smt. Ved Kashyap and recorded her name in the service book, after death of his mother, there is no income of source of the petitioner and he and his brother are facing financial problem. That, the application of the petitioner not considered by the authority in proper manner and rejected his application, on the ground that the one of the family member of deceased employee is in government servant and application for compassionate appointment is rejected, this action 4 of the respondent is illegal and against the object/aim of compassionate appointment. The respondent no.3 not considered ground raised by the petitioner on the application for grant of compassionate appointment and rejected his claim. The mother of the petitioner was employee of respondent no.4, therefore petitioner moved an application to the respondent no.4, the respondent no.3 very much aware the fact, that Late Smt. Santoshi Kashyap was not her employee, even than rejected claim of the petitioner. The object/aim of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial help to the dependents of the deceased employee, but the authority not considered application of the petitioner this aspect and rejected his application, whereas his father is residing at Bhilaigarh, Balodabazar-Bhatapara and he was living separately from deceased employee and maternal uncle also given affidavit that petitioner and his brother are living along-with him and his father not maintaining dependents of deceased employee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that one of the family members is in government service. He further submits that deceased employee i.e. mother of the petitioner was living separately from the father of the petitioner who performed second marriage, and as such, the said ground will not create hindrance for the petitioner as the spouse were living separately. 5 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the aforesaid factual position cannot be considered as according to the circular if any family member of the deceased employee is in government service then compassionate appointment cannot be granted. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Yash Kumar Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WA No.842/2024 vide order dated 12.12.2024 has confirmed the order passed by learned Single Judge in which the claim for compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that one of the family member is in government service. The relevant para is quoted hereinbelow:- “13.Learned Single Judge further held that it is not in dispute that the mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi as such, it cannot be said that deceased employees died in harness entitled the appellant to get compassionate appointment. Even the retiral dues of the Government Servant along with emoluments earned by the family members of the Shiksha Karmi who are now government servant cannot be said to be insufficient to fall the appellant 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. As such, the action of the 6 respondents authorities in canceling the appointment or not issuing appointment order to the appellant on compassionate ground is justified on the count that mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi who is not government servant still he is in gainful employment and it cannot be held that appellant is having sudden financial or pecuniary crisis, as such, the order of cancellation of appointment is legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity. 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 8. Further, the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and Others vs. Umesh Thakur in Writ Appeal No.236 of 2022 vide order dated 21.06.2023 has held in para 15 as under: “15. In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others1, State of 1 WA No.334/2021, decided on 10.12.2021 7 Chhattisgarh and Others v. Kevra Bai Markandey and another2 and the reference answered by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh and others3 answering the issue involved in this reference and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Parkash Chand4 and Central Bank of India vs. Nitin5 , compassionate appointment has to be granted in accordance with the policy applicable and where the policy applicable for compassionate appointment clearly indicates that where one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service then other members of the family of the deceased Government servant would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, then the writ court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct to hold for enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant 2 WA No.91/2022, decided on 23.02.2022. 3 WPS No.6689/2018, decided on 12.01.2022. 4 (2019) 4 SCC 285. 5 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873 8 who is already in Government service to the other family members of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by another member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rewording / revising the terms of the applicable policy for compassionate appointment, which, in our considered opinion, is wholly impermissible in law. Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated question as under; - When one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased 9 Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing /rewording of the terms of the applicable scheme /policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred.” 9. Moreover, this Court in number of petitions has considered the issue involved in the petition in hand and held that so far as policy part is concerned, unless and until, part of the policy changed, the factual aspect of the matter i.e. person living separately, dependency etc are not to be considered when there is specific provision in the policy itself. 10. Considering the principles laid by the Courts in aforementioned judgments, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition lacks merits which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash