1 2025:CGHC:52547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2811 of 2022 Mohammad Jubair Khan, son of, Late Mohammad Amir Khan, Aged About 33 Years R/o Taj Welding, Ward No. 15, Basna, Block Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - District Education Officer District Mahasamund (C.G.). 4 - Block Education Officer Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System } For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 28/10/2025 1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has 2 been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the respondent No. 3 (District Education Officer, District Mahasammund (C.G.). 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on an appropriate suitable post, after a due enquiry on the dependency of the petitioner on his deceased father (government employee). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the rule 6(A) of the 2013 policy/directions for compassionate appointment (AnnexureP-3) as inserted on 29.08.2016. 10.4 That the Hon’ble Court further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father namely- Mohd. Amir Khan was posted as Head Master in the Government Middle School Bhagat Devari, Block Pithora, District- Mahasamund. He died in harness on 01.01.2022 during the course of employment. He submits that the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment before respondents authorities, which was rejected by the respondent No. 3- District Education Officer vide impugned order dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P/1) holding that as brothers of the petitioner namely Mr. Juned Khan & Mr. Danish Khan are in the government service, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. He also submits that the brothers of the petitioner are living separately with their families and the petitioner and his mother were totally dependent upon the income of the deceased employee - father. He 3 further submits that the respondents have not conducted any enquiry as to whether the brothers of the petitioner are helping the petitioner and his mother for their livelihood. As such, that the impugned order rejecting the candidature of petitioner for compassionate appointment deserves to be set aside. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Sulochona Netam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others 1 in support of his submission. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents/State submits that the compassionate appointment is required to be given strictly in accordance with the policy framed in this regard. The State government had framed policy in the year 2013 and subsequently it was amended in the year 2016, whereby clause 6(a) has been inserted, according to which, if any other member of family of the deceased married Government servant is already in government service, then no other member of the family will be eligible for compassionate appointment. So far as the submission with regard to conducting an enquiry as to whether the brothers of the petitioner are helping the petitioner and his mother for their livelihood , placed reliance upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Umesh Thakur 2 , therefore, he submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order (Annexure P/1). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The factual scenario of this case is not in dispute. The petitioner’s father died in harness on 01.01.2020 during the period of government service. It is not in dispute that the brothers of the petitioner are working in the government department, as constable in the police department, Contractual 1 W.P. (S) No. 2728 of 2017, decided on 2728 of 2017 2 Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, decided on 21.6.2023. 4 Guest Teacher and Young Professional in Central Ground Water Board as contractual employee, respectively. 6. The issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res -integra , as full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur (supra) has considered the issued involved in this petition and held in paragraph 15 as under: “15.In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others3, State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Kevra Bai Markandey and another4 and the reference answered by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others5 answering the issue involved in this reference and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Another Vs. Parkash Chand6 and Central Bank of India v. Nitin7, compassionate appointment has to be granted in accordance with the policy applicable and where the policy applicable for compassionate appointment clearly indicates that where one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service then other members of the family of the deceased Government servant would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, then the writ court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct to hold for 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 members of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by another member 3 W.A. No. 334/2021, decided on 10.12.2021 4 W.A. No. 91/2022, decided on 23.02.2022 5 2022 SCC OnLine Chh 1598 6 (2019) 4 SCC 285 7 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873 5 of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rewording / revising the terms of the applicable policy for compassionate appointment, which, in our considered opinion, is wholly impermissible in law. Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated question 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 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. Apart from this, Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey & others 8 has held as under :- “9. Since another son of the deceased employee is already in government service, such son, who is in the government employment, would come within the meaning of a family of the deceased employee.” 8. Be that as it may, it appears that the brothers of the petitioner are in government service, it would come within the meaning of family members of the deceased employee in the government service. 8 Writ Appeal No. 91 / 2022, decided on 23.02.2022 6 9. In view of the above foregoing discussion and in light of the judgment of this Court in afore-cited cases, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition warranting interference of this Court. 10. As a fallout & consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.01 15:52:27 +0530