-1- NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4079 of 2022 Kanchan Prasad D/o Late Pradeep Prasad Aged About 21 Years R/o Teknar Road, Avarabhatha, Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Conservator of Forest Dantewada, Dist. Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Thawait, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. A.V. Shridhar, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of the applicants. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 -2- That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to conduct an inquiry to ascertain dependency of the petitioner on her deceased father and grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.4 Cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case may be given.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was working as Forest Guard and breathed his last on 12.04.2018. it is submitted that during his lifetime, the father and mother of the petitioner were not on good terms and had been living separately. It is further submitted that the petitioner, through her mother, applied for grant of maintenance and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District - Dantewada, vide its order dated 30.11.2012, granted a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to the petitioner, which was deducted from the salary of the father of the petitioner and deposited in her account. It is argued that though the mother of the petitioner was in government service and working as Clerk in the Revenue Department, but the petitioner survived on the maintenance from her father. It is further argued that being a minor girl of aged about 12 years, the petitioner continued to reside with her mother. It is also argued that the father of the petitioner, during his lifetime, applied before the competent court for custody of the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the same, he expired on 12.04.2018. -3- 3) It is contended that after the death of her father, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment; however, the same was rejected. Thereafter she made a representation on 15.07.2020, which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 12.10.2020; thus, it is prayed by counsel for the petitioner that this writ petition may be allowed. 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. 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 -4- 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) Admittedly, mother of the petitioner 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 -5- 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. 9) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim