-1- 2025:CGHC:41001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6077 of 2021 Sanjay Maravi S/o Devcharan Maravi Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post Lutara, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Present Address Ward No. 1, Chhirra, Police Station Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Panchayat Directorate, Sector 19, North Block, Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Jandpad Panchayat, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kanhaiya Yadav, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 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, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per his eligibility in place of his father who died on 10.01.2020 and quash/set-aside the letter dated 28.07.2021 Annexure P-4 issued by the Director Panchayat. 10.2 That, the cost of the petition be allowed to the petitioner from the respondent authorities. 10.3 That any other relief/directions which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, late Shri Devcharan Maravi, was serving as Assistant Internal Audit and Taxation Officer in the office of the Janpad Panchayat, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), and he died in harness on 10.01.2020. It is urged that the petitioner and his mother were wholly dependent on the deceased employee for their livelihood, and after his death, the family is facing severe financial hardship. He would further submit that the petitioner, being eligible, made an application for compassionate appointment before respondent No. 5, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Katghora, along with all requisite documents, including affidavits of other family members, caste certificate, domicile certificate, educational qualification certificates, and registration with the employment exchange. -3- 3) He would also submit that the application was forwarded to respondent No. 4, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korba, who, vide letter dated 07.07.2021, sought instructions regarding the petitioner’s case from respondent No. 2, Deputy Director, Panchayat. However, respondent No. 2, by letter dated 28.07.2021, informed that the petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment as one of the dependents of the deceased employee, namely Shri Rajeshwar Maravi is already serving as Assistant Veterinary Officer in the Veterinary Department of the State Government. 4) Mr. Yadav would contend that the petitioner made a representation dated 15.09.2021 before respondent No. 2 to the effect that his elder brother resides separately with his own family and does not support the petitioner or his mother. It was argued that the petitioner and his mother are the real dependents of the deceased employee. 5) 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. -4- 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 7) 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: "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 -5- 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." 8) 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. 9) Admittedly, the petitioner's brother is already in government service, which is not 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. 10) 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. 11) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the settled legal position, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned letter dated 28.07.2021 (Annexure P-4). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim