-1- 2025:CGHC:40990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4858 of 2021 Jayshri Badole D/o Tukaram Badole, Aged About 42 Years R/o Sai Nagar, Urla Road, Ward No. 58, Road No. 1, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Block Education Officer, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby setting- aside/quashing the impugned order dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the -2- respondent no. 2 to re-consider the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instant writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the ground that one of her brothers is in government service, and therefore, as per the policy of the State Government, she is not entitled to such appointment. It is urged that the petitioner’s elder brother, late Shri Uttam Kumar Badole, was serving as Assistant Teacher (LB) in the Education Department; he died in harness on 29.04.2021, and he was unmarried. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an unmarried lady, and was residing along with her elder brother (the deceased employee). 3) It is further submitted that another brother of the petitioner, Shri Pawan Kumar Badole, is employed in the Border Security Force (for short, BSF), but he lives separately with his own family and does not extend any financial or other assistance to the petitioner or her father. Thus, the petitioner and her father are left without any source of livelihood after the death of late Shri Uttam Kumar Badole. It is further contended that after the demise of her brother, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment in his place, but respondent No. 2 rejected her claim vide impugned order dated 20.07.2021 solely on the -3- basis that her brother, Shri Pawan Kumar Badole, is in government service. It is also contended that such rejection is mechanical, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice; thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment 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 -4- 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) In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that her 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 in government service, which is not disputed by -5- 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) In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim