1 2025:CGHC:37111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1679 of 2022 1 - Kalpana Singh Gaharwar W/o Shri Satish Singh Gaharwar Aged About 38 Years D/o. Late Shri Ramesh Singh Thakur, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Bank Maryadit, Through Managing Director, Headquarter Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Through Chairman, H.O. Nehru Chowk, Sahakar Bhawan, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, H.O. Nehru Chowk, Sahakar Bhawan, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate For State / Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondents No.3& 4 : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the rejection letter dated 17.01.2022, issued by respondent authority. 2 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the father of the petitioner, namely Ramesh Singh Thakur, was working on the post of Assistant Accountant at Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadi, Bilaspur and died in harness on 01.06.2021. He left behind his wife, daughter, namely Kalpana Singh Thakur (petitioner) and two sons, namely Shankar Singh Thakur and Omkar Singh Thakur. The petitioner moved applications for the grant of compassionate appointment on 22.07.2021 and 09.08.2021. In the application, the petitioner fairly stated that one brother of the petitioner, namely Shankar Singh Thakur, is in Government service, whereas another brother is working in a private company abroad. Respondent No.4 vide order dated 17.01.2022 rejected the application for the grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that one of the family members of the deceased employee is already in government service. Mr. Chatterjee would argue that working members of the family are not taking care of the petitioner. He would further argue that the petitioner was dependent on her father. He would contend that the respondent authorities ought to have inquired about the financial condition of the petitioner before taking the decision. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Pushpendra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No.3883 3 of 2021, wherein the following observations were made in paras 13 to 16, which are reproduced hereinbelow:- “13.Considering the fact that there is an elder brother in government employment, what needs to be verified is whether the said person can be brought within the ambit of dependent. Whether the said person can be compelled to take care of the petitioner and his widowed mother particularly when he has his own family and children to take care of and he has been living separately altogether. 14.It would have been a different case if the government employee i.e. the elder brother to the petitioner could have been unmarried and was living along with the petitioners which could have forced us to infer that he was there for sustenance of the family. 15.In the absence of any such situation, the policy of the State Govt. to that extent so far as compassionate appointment is concerned, has to be read down to be decided only after an enquiry which needs to be conducted by the respondents, ascertaining the dependency part and also in respect of any support which the petitioners are getting from the elder brother. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order needs to be reconsidered and the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by strict interpretation of the policy would not be sustainable.” 16. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order, Annexure P- 1, deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The authorities are directed to re-consider the claim of Petitioner afresh taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs and take a fresh decision at the earliest within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Chatterjee. They would submit that the Policy for compassionate appointment issued by the State of Chhattisgarh applies to the employees of the District Cooperative Central Bank of the State of Chhattisgarh. They would contend that according to Clause 6A of the Policy, if one of the family 4 members of the deceased is already in Government service, any other member of the family would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. They would further contend that the petitioner has not challenged the circular issued by the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, dated 29.08.2016, whereby clause 6A was inserted. As per the circular dated 29.8.2016, if any member of the deceased’s family is already in Government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. As regards the judgment relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel, they would argue that in Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Kevra Bai) and Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai), the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the direction for factual inquiry regarding the income, holding that there is no such provision in the policy; thus, they pray for the dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 5. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while dealing with Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, has categorically held that an inquiry into the financial condition of dependents is not envisaged in the policy. Therefore, no such direction can be issued. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below: "13. Clause 6A of the Scheme reads as follows: "6A. In the family of the deceased married government servant, if any other member of the family is already in government service, then the other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Explanation. Dependents of the family of deceased married and unmarried government servant shall include the following members: A) In case of married government servant - Dependent 5 mother, dependent parents, widow/widower, son and daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) mother, brother and sister." 15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would go to show that it does not envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment." 6. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner’s case. 7. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, late Ramesh Singh Thakur, died on 01.06.2021. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 22.07.2021 & 09.08.2021 and was rejected by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit on 17.01.2022 on the ground that one member of the family is already in the Government service. 8. Clause 6A was inserted in the policy for compassionate appointment vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the said circular in the present petition. 6 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that an application for compassionate appointment must be decided strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha