-1- 2025:CGHC:31921 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6986 of 2018 Khushburani Shandilya, D/o Late G.L.Shandilya Aged About 24 Years R/o Satyam Vihar Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Gad ,mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya ,new Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2- State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Medical and Health officer Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) _______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Ms. Swati Saraf, Advocate, holding the brief of Ms. Arpana Singh, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer _______________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, petitioner most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and Quash the impugned Instruction order dated 29.8.2016 and 14.09.2018 and declare the same ineffective against the petitioner. 10:2 That, petitioner most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner compassionate grounds on account of her father's death. 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted also. 10.4 Cost of the case may also be granted.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased government employee, namely G.L. Shandilya, who was serving as a Class-III employee in the District Hospital, Mahasamund. The petitioner's father passed away on 22.06.2018 after a prolonged illness. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 30.07.2018. However, her application was rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 14.09.2018 on the ground that one of the family members (son of the deceased employee) is already in government service. 3) The petitioner has challenged clause 6(A) of the policy for compassionate appointment issued by the State Government dated 29.08.2016, wherein it is provided that if one of the dependents of a deceased government servant is already in government service, other dependents shall not be entitled to compassionate appointment. -3- 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the circular dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the constitutional mandate. It is further contended that the petitioner's brother was living separately and was not dependent on the deceased employee, and this relevant fact has not been considered by the authorities concerned while deciding the application for compassionate appointment. She submits that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide a dignified means of livelihood to the dependents of the deceased government servants, and hence the order dated 14.09.2018 as well as the circular dated 29.08.2016 is liable to be quashed. 5) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned circular dated 29.08.2016 was issued by the General Administration Department and the instant petition has been filed on 05.10.2018, thus, this petition suffers from delay and laches. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s elder brother is already in government service and as per Clause 6(A) of the said circular, no other dependent is entitled to compassionate appointment. 6) She also submits that the petitioner's brother is working as Sub Engineer in the Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Raipur and was appointed prior to the death of the petitioner’s father. It is further contended that compassionate appointment is governed by the policy of the State Government and such policy decision falls within the exclusive domain of the executive. 7) It is also argued that compassionate appointment is not a matter of -4- right but rather an exception to the general rule of recruitment. The purpose of such an appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee but if a member of the family is already in government service, it is presumed that the family is not in immediate financial distress. Therefore, the policy decision reflected in the circular dated 29.08.2016 is just & proper. She highlights that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the said circular is arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 9) It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner died on 22.06.2018 and the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected on 14.09.2018 on the ground that one of the family members is already in government service. The impugned rejection order has been passed on the basis of Clause 6(A) of the circular dated 29.08.2016. 10) The very object of providing compassionate appointments is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time and the same has been achieved as the family of the petitioner has already survived for such a long period. Further, if one of the dependents is already employed in public service, it is presumed that the family is not in acute need, and the purpose of the scheme stands fulfilled. 11) The contention that the petitioner’s brother was not dependent on the deceased father does not alter the applicability of the circular, which makes no such distinction. The policy decision is uniform in -5- application and it is not found to be violative of the constitutional provisions. Therefore, I find no merit in the challenge to the circular dated 29.08.2016 or to the rejection of the petitioner’s application. There is no good ground for interference in the matter. 12) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim