-1- 2025:CGHC:40320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6983 of 2021 Ku. Noma Yadav D/o Late Shri Dashrath Yadav, Aged About 22 Years R/o Brahamanpara Ward No. 24 Near Shiv Mandir Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1-Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh, Head Office Sector-4, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Karmik Prabandhak, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be quashed impugned order dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) and Respondent are directed to reconsider the claim of the Petitioner afresh taking into consideration and take a fresh decision in the application for compassionate appointment of the Petitioner. 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit -2- and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was a Government employee under the respondent, who died in harness on 21.04.2021. Thereafter, the application for compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner, and the same was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.10.2021 on the ground that the petitioner’s elder brother is already employed in Government service. He would further submit that the brother does not fall within the definition of a “dependent” under the applicable policy. He would also submit that the brother has neither maintained nor provided any financial support to the petitioner or their mother. He would contend that the authorities ought to have conducted an inquiry to ascertain the actual dependency and level of support received from the brother before rejecting the claim. He would further contend that the policy of the State Government regarding the compassionate appointment should be read in a manner that considers the genuine financial hardship of the dependent family members; thus, it is argued that the impugned order is unsustainable and may be set-aside. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent(s) 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 -3- 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. He would further submit that the Hon’ble Full Bench in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur, W.A. No. 236 of 2022, delivered on 21.06.2023, held that where the policy prohibits compassionate appointment if any family member is already in Government service, the Court cannot direct an inquiry into dependency or financial support and doing so would amount to rewriting the policy. 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. -4- 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 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) Similarly, in the matter of Umesh Thakur (supra), the Hon’ble Full Bench held that where the applicable policy bars compassionate appointment when a family member is already in Government service, no inquiry into the dependency or financial support can be directed by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India The relevant para is reproduced 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 for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not -5- 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.” 7) 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. 8) 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. 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 facts and the settled legal position, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim