1 2025:CGHC:37107 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9068 of 2022 Abhinav Kashyap S/o Late Krishna Kumar Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Village, Post And Tahsil - Jarhagaon, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- Director General of Police P.H.Q., Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3- Superintendent of Police Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. Hon'ble Court may be kind and gracious enough to call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2. Hon'ble Court may be kind be pleased to quash the order dated 25.04.2020 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 11.08.2020 (Annexure P/2) by Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, namely Shri Krishna Kumar Kashyap, died in harness on 06.03.2020, while serving in the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. He was posted at Police Line, Mungeli, at the time of his death. It is further submitted that on 23.03.2020, the mother of the petitioner made an application for the grant of compassionate appointment for the petitioner to post of Constable (General Duty) before respondent No. 3. In the said application, it was specifically mentioned that the mother is dependent on the petitioner and there is no other person to look after her. However, vide letter dated 25.04.2020, respondent No. 3 rejected the application on the ground that one of the family members is already in Government service, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment according to Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment. 3. It is also pleaded that another representation was made by the mother of the petitioner before respondent No. 2, clarifying that though the petitioner's elder brother is in Government service on the post of Constable posted at District Gariyaband but he does not support the family. Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 11.08.2020, again rejected the representation made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, on the same ground; thus, he submits that the rejection 3 of the application is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the policy in force, and prays for quashing the impugned communications. Reliance has been placed in the matter of Smt. Sulochana Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh [WPS/2728/2017] passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.11.2017, wherein direction was issued to the respondent authorities to hold enquiry in the matter to verify the petitioner's claim that her father-in-law is living separately and not providing financial help. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per the circular dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member of the deceased employee is already in Government service, the other family members would not be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. He further relies on the judgment passed 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, thus, the reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Smt. Sulochana Netam (supra) is of no help. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 6. 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. 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. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner’s case. 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 in the post of Constable in the Police Department, 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. 6 11. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned letters dated 25.04.2020 and 11.08.2020. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim