1 2025:CGHC:39789 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5161 of 2021 Pravin Singh S/o Late Dinesh Kumar, aged about 27 years, Caste Gond, R/o Village Bhoyana Tahsil and District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Public Education, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- District Education Officer, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 12/08/2021 regarding the cancellation of the appointment order of the petitioner. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.13 11:57:48 +0530 2 10.3 To kindly restore the appointment order of the petitoner dated 31.05.2021. 10.4 To kindly direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the services of the petitioner as per the order of appointment dated 31.05.2021. 10.4 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, Shri Dinesh Kumar, died in harness on 19.01.2020 while serving as an Accountant in District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) at the time of his death. It is submitted that on 04.02.2020, the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment before respondent No. 2 which was accepted by respondents No.2 and the compassionate appointment order dated 31.05.2021 was issued appointing the petitioner on the post of AG-III. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.08.2021, respondent No. 2 rejected the application and compassionate appointment order dated 31.05.2021 on the ground that the elder brother of the petitioner is already in Government service, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. He would submit that as the brother of the petitioner is already in government service, but he neither supports nor maintains the family. He would contend that there was separate cause of action after death of father of the petitioner, therefore,respondent No.2 ought to have considered the application 3 moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He would pray to quash the order dated 12.08.2021 and restore the appointment order of the petitioner dated 31.05.2021. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per the circular dated 29.08.2016 and revised instruction 2013 vide circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member of the deceased employee is already in Government service, the other family members are not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. He 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 contemplate any inquiry into the financial status of other family members, and eligibility is to be decided strictly as per the conditions of the policy. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 5. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate appointments, has clearly held that if any member of the family of a deceased married government servant is already in government service, no other member of the family is eligible for 4 compassionate appointment. The relevant portion of Clause 6A reads as under: "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." 5 6. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner’s case. 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 disputed by the petitioner. Clause 6A of 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 letters/orders dated 31.05.2021 and 12.08.2021. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE vatti