1 2025:CGHC:45906 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6822 of 2017 1 - Prajwal Kadiyam S/o Late Shri Narsingh Nath Kadiyam Aged About 18 Years R/o R. E. S. Colony, Quarter No. 25 Geedam Dantewada, Post And Police Station Geedam Tahsil And District Dantewada Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sheela Kadiyam W/o Late Shri Narsingh Nath Kadiyam Aged About 58 Years R/o R. E. S. Colony, Quarter No. 25 Geedam Dantewada, Post And Police Station Geedam Tahsil And District Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintending Of Police, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.10 17:51:53 +0530 2 09/09/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to produce entire record pertaining to the petitioner's case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 16/06/2016 passed by the respondent no 2, Annexure P/3 and direct to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner no 1 on the ground of compassionate appointment. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner no 1 on the ground of compassionate appointment treating him as a special case. 10.4 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court. 10.5 Cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2, namely, Narshingh Nath Kadiyam was working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in the Police Department and he died in harness on 23.3.2016. He would further contend that the application for grant of compassionate appointment was 3 moved on 9.6.2016 and same has been rejected by respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police, Durg vide order dated 16.6.2016 on the ground that one of the family members of the deceased government servant is already in service. Learned counsel would submit that mother of petitioner No.1, i.e., petitioner No.2 was working on the post of Shiksha Karmi in the year 2018 and her services were absorbed in the School Education Department. He would further contend that at the time of death of father of petitioner No.1, his mother was an employee of Panchayat and she was not a government servant. Therefore, the reason assigned by the Superintendent of Police in the order impugned is erroneous and contrary to the policy for compassionate appointment. He would pray for quashment of the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents would submit that one of the members of the deceased family is already in service, therefore, the application moved by petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment has been rightly rejected by the competent authority and thus the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available with due care. 5. The father of petitioner No.1 died on 23.3.2016 and the application was moved on 9.6.2016. Clause 6A was inserted in 4 the policy for compassionate appointment on 29.8.2016 and thus on the date of death this provision was not in existence. There was a proviso appended to Clause 6 which states that if any of the members of the deceased government servant is in government service, other members would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. This provision was existing prior to 29.8.2016. 6. The father of petitioner No.1 was working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Amrita Sinha, reported in (2021) 20 SCC 695 has held that without considering the financial condition compassionate appointment is legally impermissible. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder: “10. In the present case, the family pension which was payable as on the date of the consideration of the application has been taken into account. The fact that the pension would be up for revision in terms of the policy after a decade was not a reason to discard the pensionary payment which was being made towards family pension on the date of the consideration of the application for compassionate appointment. 11. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but is to enable the family to tide over an immediate crisis which may result from the death of the employee. If the policy of the government envisages that 5 the family pension would be paid for ten years after which it would have to be modified, it cannot be said that by taking into account the present pensionary payment, the authorities have considered an extraneous circumstance. The same criterion is applied even-handedly to all applicants seeking compassionate appointment.” 7. The object of compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden financial crisis which occurred on account of death of the bread/wage earner and it is also well settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment permits a side door entry. Therefore, the policy or rules cannot be relaxed. 8. Considering the fact that one of the family members of the deceased government servant is already in service and petitioner No.1 has already survived for a period of 9 years without compassionate appointment; the father of petitioner No.1 was working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector and mother of petitioner No.1 is a government teacher, in my opinion, petitioner No.1 is not eligible for grant of compassionate appointment and his application was rightly rejected by the authority concerned. 9. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Gopal