-1- NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6524 of 2022 Devantin Khadhe Wd/o Late Mr. Dinesh Kumar Khadhe Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Salihapara, Tahsil Durgkondal, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Education officer Uttar Bastar Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive officer Janpad Panchayat, Koyalibeda, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Tapan Chandra, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.09.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P/3) and direct the respondents Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- to issue appointment order in favor of petitioner. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner, late Dinesh Kumar Khadhe, was working as Assistant Teacher (L.B.) at Saliyapara Tarhul, Tahsil Durgkondal, District Uttar Bastar Kanker. He died in harness on 24.09.2021. Copy of the death certificate is filed as Annexure P/1. He would further submit that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 29.11.2021, along with affidavit and relevant documents. He would also submit that the said application was rejected by the respondent No. 3 on 21.07.2022 on the ground that the father of the deceased employee, namely Agnu Ram Khadhe, is already in Government service, posted as Head Master, Middle School Kodakhurri, Block Durgkondal. 3) 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. -3- 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 5) 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 are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of -4- 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." 6) In view of the above settled legal position, the plea of the petitioner that her father-in- law does not support or maintain the family cannot override the express bar contained in Clause 6(A). 7) Admittedly, the father of the deceased employee is serving as Head Master under the Government, which is not disputed by the petitioner. Clause 6(A) introduced by circular dated 29.08.2016 clearly bars compassionate appointment in such a situation. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said circular in this petition. 8) It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but an exception to the general rule of public employment, and applications for such appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. Courts cannot issue directions contrary to policy. 9) In light of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim