1 2025:CGHC:36559 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3906 of 2017 Archana Awasthi D/o Late Om Prakash Awasthi, Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Hardev Nath Temple, Beside Sagar Kirana, Budha Talab Road, Brahampuri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Medical College Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Administration/ Non- Gazetted, office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Aranya Bhawan Medical College Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/07/2025 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner’s 2 application seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father, Late Om Prakash Awasthi, was working on a post of Account Superintendent (Class-III post) under respondent No.2 and died in harness on 14.09.2016. It is submitted that the petitioner, who is the daughter of the deceased, applied for compassionate appointment under the prevailing policy of the State Government on 01.10.2016 (Annexure P/4). It is also submitted that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from cancer, and she was solely dependent on the deceased employee. It is submitted that though her brother, Mr. Aashish Awasthi, is mentioned as a dependent in the service records, but he was estranged from the family due to personal disputes and has been residing separately with no connection with the deceased or his surviving family members. 3. It is argued that the petitioner’s application was rejected by respondent No.3 in the light of State Government’s amended policy dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure P/6) on the ground that the brother of the petitioner is employed with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, BSNL), which is a Central Government company. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the said rejection is arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that the employment of the brother of the petitioner with BSNL cannot be treated as bar (i) he is not residing with the family, and (ii) he is not in "government service" in terms of the policy. 3 It was further argued that the family has been left in penury and the petitioner, who possesses a Master’s degree in Computer Management, is otherwise eligible. 2. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that as per Clause 6 of the compassionate appointment policy dated 14.06.2013, as amended by notification dated 29.08.2016, if any dependent member of the deceased employee is already in service, compassionate appointment shall not be granted to another member of the family. It is submitted that in the present case, the brother of the petitioner is shown as a dependent in the service record and is admittedly employed with BSNL, a Central Government-owned company. Therefore, the competent authority has rightly rejected the application; thus, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 4. Admittedly, the service records of the deceased mention the petitioner’s brother as a dependent, and he is presently employed with BSNL. Whether he resides with the family or maintains cordial relations is not the determinative factor under the policy. The criteria is limited to employment status. BSNL being a Central Government company, the employment of the petitioner’s brother attracts the bar under the policy. 4 5. The amended policy dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure P/6) clearly bars compassionate appointment where any member of the family is already in service. 6. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but is an exception to the general rule of appointment through open competition. The object of such appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family in distress due to the sudden demise of the sole breadearner. 7. In view of the above, the decision of the respondent authorities to reject the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 8. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim