1 2025:CGHC:45346 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5840 of 2022 * - Jyoti Sahu D/o Late Shri Ram Kumar Sahu Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Ward No. 8, Bajar Para, Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Senior Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Akansha Vishwakarma, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) as per order dated 02.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. 10.(ii)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue strictly direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner on the compassionate basis within stipulated time looking to the low condition of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.09 14:28:50 +0530 2 10.(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Ms. Akansha Vishwakarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, Shri Ramkumar Sahu, died in harness on 11.04.2021 while posted in Bilaspur to the post of Head Constable. She would contend that the mother of the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on behalf of the petitioner before respondent No. 3, but vide order dated 15.09.2021, the respondent No. 3 rejected the application on the ground that one of the family members i.e. son of deceased, namely Vikas Sahu is already working in the Forest Department, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. Ms. Akansha Vishwakarma further submits that thereafter the petitioner had challenged the order dated 15.09.2021 by filing WPS No. 6541/2021 before High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2021 with a direction to respondent No.2/Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh. She would contend that in compliance of the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the High Court, the petitioner made representation dated 13.12.2021 for grant of compassionate appointment before respondent No. 3, but same has been rejected vide order dated 17.02.2022 by respondent No. 3 on the ground that one of the family members is already in Government service. She would submit that the rejection of the application is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the policy in force, and prays for quashing of the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per the circular dated 29.08.2016 and revised circular dated 23.02.2019 issued 3 by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family members of the deceased employee is already in Government service, the other family members would not be 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 6. 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 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.” 4 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 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 and 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 orders dated 17.02.2022 and 15.09.2021 passed by respondent No. 3. 5 11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti