-1- 2025:CGHC:38373 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5010 of 2021 Smt. Kalpana Ramteke D/o Late Shri Bharat Singh Rangari, W/o Shri Bhuvan Ramteke Aged About 31 Years Caste Mahar (Sc), R/o. 10, Village Damabanjari, Post Kallu Banjari, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through It's Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Public Education Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Balod, District Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education officer District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education officer Block Daundi Lohara, District Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner and after its perusal allow the petition. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 24/08/2018 passed by respondent No. 4 District officer (Ann.P/4), in which the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be please to direct the respondent authorities to hold enquiry in the matter to verify the petitioners' claim. If it is found that the petitioner is living separately and not getting financial help from her brothers, the petitioner's case should be considered separately and given compassionate appointment to her. 10.4 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted to the petitioner.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, Smt. Kalpana Ramteke, is the married daughter of deceased Government servant Bharat Singh Rangari, who was serving as a Higher Division Teacher and expired on 18.03.2018 in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 01.05.2018. However, her application was rejected by the District Education officer, Balod, vide order dated 24.08.2018 solely on the ground that her two brothers are already in government service and her mother is a semi-government employee. 3) It is submitted that the petitioner and her unemployed husband were wholly dependent on the deceased employee; further, she has also obtained written consent for her compassionate appointment from her family members. It is also submitted that the rejection of her application without any enquiry into her -3- financial dependency is arbitrary and defeats the object of the compassionate appointment policy; thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed in light of the judgment passed in Sulochana Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh, (WPS No. 2728 of 2017 dated 23.11.2017). 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 condition of dependents is not envisaged in the policy. Therefore, no such direction can be issued. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below: -4- "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) 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. 8) Admittedly, the petitioner's brother is already in government service, which is not -5- 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. 9) 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. 10) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.08.2018 (Annexure P/4). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim