-1- 2025:CGHC:41170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4556 of 2021 Kumari Aditi Verma D/o Shri Aseem Verma Aged About 19 Years R/o - K-01, Savitri Nivas, Krantinagar, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Chhattisgarh Vidhi And Vidhayee Karya Vibhag Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Registrar General, Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Dahariya, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.08.2025 1) The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent No. 2 to reconsider her case for the grant of compassionate appointment. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother, Late Smt. Vidya Verma was working as a Clerk Class-II/Assistant Grade-II under respondent No. 2. She died in harness on 19.02.2019. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 08.05.2019 for a compassionate appointment. It is argued that the mother of the petitioner was mainly bearing the entire responsibility of upbringing, care, maintenance, and education of the petitioner and his younger sister. Although the father of the petitioner is in government service but he is visually impaired and handicapped, and has been indifferent towards the family, thereby not contributing any kind of support. He would contend that due to these adverse financial circumstances and extreme hardship faced by the petitioner and his sister, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment. However, respondent No. 2, by order dated 20.07.2021, summarily rejected the application without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submits that, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the respondents ought to have reconsidered the case of the petitioner. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the father of the petitioner is already in government service; therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to a compassionate appointment according to clause 6A of the Policy for Compassionate Appointment. He would further submit 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 -3- 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 son/daughter, widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in -4- 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 father 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 father is already in government service. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. Clause 6A, inserted by circular dated 29.08.2016, clearly bars consideration of any other dependent family member for compassionate appointment in such circumstances. 8) It is a settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, and applications are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the policy in -5- force. 9) Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P-2). 10) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim