1 2025:CGHC:46755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1841 of 2022  Kumundani Kanwar D/o Late Shri Liladhar Singh Kanwar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Gursiya, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner Public Education Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4. District Education Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12. 09.2025 1. The present petition is filed against rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 27.12.2021 (ANNEXURE P/1). 2. The facts of the present case are that father of the petitioner namely Liladhar Singh Kanwar was posted to the post of Headmaster at Government Aashram Middle School, Madai, who died in harness on 03.11.2020. The petitioner left behind a widow and three children. The sons of the deceased Government servant, namely Yogesh Kumar Kanwar and SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.16 17:31:06 +0530 2 Bhupendra Kumar Kanwar are in Government service. The petitioner, who is daughter of the deceased Government Government servant moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 28.12.2020. The respondent No. 4 rejected the application vide order dated 27.12.2021 on the ground that two sons of Late Liladhar Singh Kanwar are already in Government service, therefore, according to Clause 6A of Policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 28.12.2020 on the ground that the petitioner was dependent solely on his deceased father. He would further submit that no financial assistance is being provided by her brothers. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 5857 of 2021. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member of the deceased government servant is already employed in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. The State counsel further relies on the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically held that the policy does not envisage any inquiry into the financial condition of other family members, and eligibility is to be strictly decided as per the terms of the policy. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 3 6. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate appointments, has clearly held that if any member of the family of a deceased government servant is already in government service, no other member of the family is eligible for a compassionate appointment. Further 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 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." 7. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no 4 assistance to the petitioner’s case. In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that his elder brothers do not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner's brothers are already in government service, which is not disputed by the petitioner. Clause 6A in the compassionate appointment policy was inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said circular in the present petition. 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the policy in force. 10. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant