-1- 2025:CGHC:40318 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 99 of 2022 Yashoda Sahu D/o Late Churaman Lal Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Sector-6, Street No. 40, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Additional Collector, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Deputy Collector, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tahsildar, Tehsil Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Narendra Mehar, Advocate For State : Ms.Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.08.2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the letter/order dated 20.07.2021 & Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 22.09.2018 issued by the Deputy Collector (on behalf of Collector), Balod (C.G.) & Additional Collector, Balod (C.G.) respectively. 10.2. This 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 the basis of direction of this Hon'ble Court in the cases of Smt. Sulochana Netam V. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors, Writ Petition (S) No. 2728 of 2017; Pramod Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, W.P.S. No. 7039 of 2016; & Veermani Sonwani V. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., W.P.S. No. 2355 of 2020. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit as under:- A. The authorities have mechanically rejected the claim of the petitioner with regard to compassionate appointment by invoking Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 without holding any fact-finding inquiry into the petitioner’s and other dependents’ financial dependency on the deceased government servant. B. The elder brother of the petitioner, though in government service, had left the family, is living separately, and does not provide financial support to the petitioner, her mother, or her children; hence, the underlying assumption of Clause 6A that an earning family member would take care of other dependents does not apply in the present case. C. The object and purpose of the 29.08.2016 circular is to avoid duplication of the benefit on the presumption of intra-family support and not to penalize unattended dependents; therefore, the petitioner’s case warrants consideration as an exception or at least a speaking order after inquiry. D. The rejection dated 20.07.2021 further cites the delay of three years under -3- the 14.06.2013 policy; however, the authority failed to consider the peculiar family circumstances and the representations, including the mother’s letter dated 26.05.2021, and to exercise discretion in a manner consistent with the beneficial object of compassionate appointment. E. It is urged that the impugned orders may be set aside and the matter be remitted back for a fresh consideration after conducting a proper inquiry into the dependency. 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. 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 -4- 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 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 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. -5- 7) Admittedly, the petitioner’s brother is in government service. Clause 6A, inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016, therefore operates as a bar. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said circular. 8) It is well settled that applications for compassionate appointment must be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy, and the Court cannot direct appointment contrary to the policy. 9) Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the governing legal position, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 22.09.2018 and 20.07.2021 (Annexures P/1 and P/2 colly). The writ petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim