1 2025:CGHC:43428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8048 of 2025 1 - Gautam Bhagat S/o Late Dileshwar Ram Bhagat Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Upar Gamhariya, P.O. Bagiha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police Sarguja Range, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police And Senior Superintendent Of Police District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Of Police District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for the grant of compassionate appointment vide orders dated 22-08-2022 (Annexure VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.28 18:31:30 +0530 2 P-1), 18-01-2023 (Annexure P-2), 15-09-2023 (Annexure P-11), and 30-08-2024 (Annexure P-14), the present writ petition has been filed. The rejection has been on the grounds that the daughter of the deceased employee is already in government employment and, therefore, under the policy, his claim is rejected. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner, namely Dileshwar Ram Bhagat, working as Constable No. 173, with the respondent department, died in harness on 06-04-2022. On the date of death, his daughter Ku. Gulshan Bhagat was already in service as a Staff Nurse and posted at District Hospital, Jashpur, and she is in service since 2019. On account of the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 06-05-2022; however, vide order dated 22-08-2022, his application has been rejected on the ground that the daughter of the deceased is in government employment and under the policy, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Another application for compassionate appointment has also been rejected on 18-01-2023 on the same ground that the daughter of the deceased employee is in government employment. The repeated applications of the petitioner were again rejected vide orders dated 15-09-2023 and 30-08-2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the daughter of the deceased was already married and residing at her matrimonial house, and living separately from the petitioner, she does not fall within the definition of a dependant of the deceased. She cannot be 3 considered a member of the family after her marriage. The petitioner is the son of the deceased employee, and after his death, has no source of livelihood and income. To that extent, the authorities ought to have conduct an enquiry and thereafter should have taken a decision. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and submits that since daughter of the deceased employee is already in government employment, in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment, the candidature of the petitioner/applicant has been rejected and in absence of any challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondent authorities cannot be said to be illegal and bad in law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. All said and done, one of the family members, i.e. daughter of the deceased employee, is already in government employment is not disputed by the petitioner, though it is stated that she has already married and is residing at her matrimonial house. The financial crisis and penury are the basic parameters for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the objective and policy framed by the State Government. As such, the action of the respondent authorities rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment is justified on the grounds that the daughter of the deceased employee is already in government employment. 4 7. As regards the scheme for compassionate appointment is concerned, the legal position as it stands, it has been time and again laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also by this Court that the scheme for compassionate appointment can only be considered strictly in accordance with the scheme and policy applicable at the relevant point of time. Moreover, it is also a settled position of law that compassionate appointment cannot be considered as another mode of recruitment. The very purpose of granting a compassionate appointment is to ensure that the family members of the deceased employee are able to meet the immediate financial crisis that they face upon the death of the breadwinner in the family. 8. In the present case, in the order dated 22-08-2022 (Annexure P-1), it has been clearly mentioned that an enquiry was conducted about the facts that whether any family member of the deceased employee is in government employment or not, and it is found that his daughter is in government employment since 2019. This has been reiterated in the order dated 30-08-2024 also. Thus, a proper enquiry was also conducted in the matter, and his application for compassionate appointment is rejected on that very ground. 9. Recently, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in “Yash Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others”, Writ Appeal No. 842/2024, order dated 12-12-2024, has affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in which the claim for compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that one of the family 5 members is already in government employment. The relevant para is quoted herein below:- “13. Learned Single Judge further held that it is not in dispute that the mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi as such, it cannot be said that deceased employees died in harness entitled the appellant to get compassionate appointment. Even the retiral dues of the Government Servant along with emoluments earned by the family members of the Shiksha Karmi who are now government servant cannot be said to be insufficient to fall the appellant within the ambit of sudden financial crisis or penury. The financial crisis or penury is basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government regarding grant of compassionate appointment. As such, the action of the respondents authorities in canceling the appointment or not issuing appointment order to the appellant on compassionate ground is justified on the count that mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi who is not government servant still he is in gainful employment and it cannot be held that appellant is having sudden financial or pecuniary crisis, as such, the order of cancellation of appointment is legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity. 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 6 10. In the matter of “State of Chhattisgarh and Others v. Umesh Thakur”, W.A. No. 236/2022, decided on 21-06-2023, the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court has considered that:- “15. In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra), Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) and the reference answered by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha (supra) answering the issue involved in this reference and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Parkash Chand’s case (supra) and Nitin's case (supra), compassionate appointment has to be granted in accordance with the policy applicable and where the policy applicable for compassionate appointment clearly indicates that where one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service then other members of the family of the deceased Government servant would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, then the writ court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct to hold for enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family members of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by another member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rewording / revising the terms of the applicable policy for compassionate appointment, which, in our considered opinion, is wholly impermissible in law. Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated question as under: - When one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant 7 for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing/rewording of the terms of the applicable scheme/policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred.” 11. Thus, applying the same analogy to the facts of the present case, since the daughter of the deceased employee is already in government employment, as per the policy of compassionate appointment of the State Government, the petitioner cannot be given a compassionate appointment. The policy of the State Government has been affirmed by learned Single Judge of this Court in said writ appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment, and his application for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondent department. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved