-1- 2025:CGHC:36755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5689 of 2021  Kaushal Ram Uikey S/o Late Shri Ramji Paleshwar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Devkot Post- Kawar, Tehsil Guroor District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. District Education Officer Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Block Education Officer Block- Guroor, District-Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that his elder brother is already in Government service. The rejection was based on the clarification notification dated -2- 29.08.2016 issued by the State Government. 2) The brief facts necessary for the adjudication are as follows:- A. The petitioner’s father, Late Shri Ramji Paleshwar, was working as a Head Master under the Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh. Unfortunately, he passed away while in service on 24.08.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 07.10.2020 along with relevant documents. B. The said application was considered by respondent No. 2, and it was noted that his elder brother is already in government service. Respondent No. 2 rejected the application moved by the petitioner vide order dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that, according to the amended guidelines for compassionate appointment, if one of the family members is already in government service, the other dependents of the deceased government servant would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 07.10.2020 on the ground that the petitioner was dependent solely on his deceased father. He would further submit that no financial assistance is being provided by his elder brother. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 5857 of 2021. 4) On the other hand, Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, learned State counsel, would submit that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities in accordance with the prevailing policy of the State Government. She would further submit that after the death of -3- the petitioner’s father, he submitted an application for compassionate appointment before Respondent No. 2. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2, in light of the amended policy contained in the circular dated 29/08/2016, rejected the application moved by the petitioner. She would also submit that the circular dated 29/08/2016 introduced an amendment to the consolidated policy dated 14/06/2013, clarifying that if there is already an earning member in the family of the deceased government servant, the other family members would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. She would contend that in the present case, it is not in dispute that the elder brother of the petitioner, Suryakant Uikey, is in permanent government service, and this fact has been admitted by the petitioner himself in his application. Therefore, as per the amended policy dated 29/08/2016, the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment. As regards the judgment relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel, she would argue that in Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Kevra Bai) and Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai), the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside such directions for factual inquiry regarding income, holding that there is no such provision in the policy; thus, she prays for the dismissal of the petition. 5) 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 dealing with Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, has categorically held that 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) Therefore, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner’s case. 8) In the present case, it is not in dispute that the elder brother of the petitioner is already in government service; therefore, according to clause 6(A) of the policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. 9) In light of the above-discussion, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 12.08.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 10) Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is -5- hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant