-1- 2025:CGHC:38184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3589 of 2022 Shishir Manik S/o Sagar Das Manik Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Ward No, 04, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Kandra Para, Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P-1 and kindly direction may be issued in the light of earlier order to the respondent authority to -2- consider claim of the petitioner and grant compassionate appointment within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Shanta Manik, who was working as Head Master at Government Middle School, died in harness on 27.06.2021. After her death, the petitioner, being her son, submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. However, his application was rejected on the ground that his elder brother, Shri Sourabh Manik, is already in government service, working as a Teacher (L.B.). It is further submitted that Shri Sourabh Manik was married in 2005 and has two children one studying in Class IX and another in Class V, he lives separately and does not contribute financially to the family of the deceased. An earlier rejection order dated 23.09.2021 was challenged, and this Court, by order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-3), directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and take a fresh decision within 90 days. Thereafter, a formal inquiry was conducted by the authorities & statements of the petitioner and his relatives were recorded and again rejected the petitioner’s claim vide order dated 02.02.2022 (Annexure P-1), reiterating the same grounds without considering the findings of the inquiry. 3) 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, -3- 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. 4) I have 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 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 -4- 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) In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that his elder brother does not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy. 7) Admittedly, the petitioner's brother is 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. 8) 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. -5- 9) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned letter dated 02.02.2022 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim