1 2025:CGHC:49662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10852 of 2025 1 - Dhananjay S/o Late Damru Ram Patra Aged About 28 Years R/o Budhwari Bazar, Mahavir Mandir Ward No.08, Narayanpur, Tahsil And District Narayanpur (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Fishery Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Directrate Of Pisciculture Department, Indravati Bhawan, Fourth Floor (B-Block), Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Assistant Director Pisciculture Department, Collectorate Campus, Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh -------Respondents (cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 06/10/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the decision of Respondent No. 3 rejecting the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.13 10:28:30 +0530 2 2. As per case of petitioner, father of petitioner late Damru Ram Patra while working on Class-IV post (Matsya Jamadar) in the office of Assistant Director, Pisciculture, Narayanpur died in harness on 26.06.2024. Petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 24.07.2024 in the prescribed format along with relevant documents, which was rejected vide order impugned (Annexuer P-1) observing that his elder brother namely Harish is already in Government service working as Patwari, therefore according to clause 6A of Circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the State Government, petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for grant of compassionate appointment, this writ is filed seeking following reliefs. “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 14.01.2025 (Anneuxre P-1) passed by respondent No.3, in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the action on the part of respondents authorities while rejecting the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and erroneous. It is contended the respondent authority failed to appreciate this fact 3 that elder brother of petitioner is having his own family and is residing separately. It is further contended that father of petitioner was taking care of the petitioner and other family members and after his death, petitioner and other family members are suffering from financial crises and are unable to maintain themselves. 4. Learned State counsel opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that clause 6A of the Circular is inserted under the policy for grant of compassionate appointment with some purpose. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a social scheme to protect the family members of the deceased employee from sudden financial crisis due to untimely demise of the only bread-winner. There is no error in rejecting the application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment because one of his brother is already in Government employment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. From perusal of documents available on record would show that father of petitioner died in harness on 26.06.2024 and petitioner thereafter submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 24.07.2024. Along with the writ petition, petitioner has filed the death certificate and dependency certificate issued by office of Tahsildar, Narayanpur, District – Narayanpur. On the date of submission of application, consolidated guidelines/ Circular issued by the State Government in the year 2016 for 4 compassionate appointment was in force. Claim of petitioner was rejected by Respondent No. 3 considering clause 6A of the said Guidelines/ Circular, observing that elder brother of petitioner is already in government job and employed as Patwari. Clause 6A is extracted below for ready reference. “ijUrq e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj esa ;fn iwoZ ls gh ifjokj dk dksbZ vU; lnL; 'kkldh; lsok esa gS] rks ifjokj ds vU; fdlh Hkkh lnL; dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ughs gksxhA” 7. The Instructions issued by the State Government to provide compassionate appointment to one family member of deceased Government employee with an intent and object to enable them to meet out sudden financial crisis occurred in the family of Government employee, only bread winner who died in harness while working with State Government. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Policy for granting compassionate appointment is to meet out immediate succor, if comes within the criteria as fixed by the State Government in the policy issued in this regard. It is not a mode of employment. Court has to consider whether the order passed on claim of compassionate employment is in accordance with the policy or not. Court cannot rewrite the policy in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Nothing more is to be read into which is not mentioned specifically in the policy. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, has observed thus: “2. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of 5 open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased." (emphasis added)." 9. In case of Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 192, Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing object of compassionate appointment has held as under:- “8. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment." 10. In case of SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment 6 is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the rules must be satisfied by all aspirants. 11. In case of V. Sivamurth v. State of A.P., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730, Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the principles relating to compassionate appointment as follows:- “18. (a) Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in Public Service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though no other mode of appointment is permissible, appointments on compassionate grounds are a well- recognised exception to the said general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies. (b) Two well recognized contingencies which are carved out as exceptions to the general rule are : (i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the bread- winner while in service. (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the bread winner. Another contingency, though less recognized, is where land holders lose their entire land for a public project, the scheme provides for compassionate appointment to members of the families of project affected persons. (Particularly where the law under which the acquisition is made does not provide for market value and solatium, as compensation). (c) Compassionate appointment can neither be claimed, nor be granted, unless the rules governing the service permit such appointments. Such appointments shall be strictly in accordance with the scheme governing such appointments and against existing vacancies. 7 (d) Compassionate appointments are permissible only in the case of a dependant member of the family of the employee concerned, that is spouse, son or daughter and not other relatives. Such appointments should be only to posts in the lower category, that is, Classes III and IV posts and the crises cannot be permitted to be converted into a boon by seeking employment in Class I or II posts." (emphasis supplied) 12. In State of Himachal Pradesh & another vs. Prakash Chand, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that direction to consider application for compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased employee de hors policy is impermissible and observed thus:- 9. The High Court has observed that the State should consider cases for appointment on compassionate basis by dealing with the applications submitted by sons, or as the case may be, daughters of the deceased government employees, even though, one member of the family is engaged in the service of the Government or an autonomous Board or Corporation. This direction of the judgment of the High Court virtually amounts to a mandamus to the State Government to disregard the terms which have been stipulated in Para 5( c ) of its Policy dated 18-1-1990. The Policy contains a limited exception which is available only to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks compassionate appointment even though one of the children of the deceased employee is gainfully employed with the State. The basis for this exception is to deal with cases where the widow is not being supported financially by her children. 10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy. It is well settled that compassionate 8 appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] , SBI v. Kunti Tiwary [SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] , Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja [Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 938] , SBI v. Somvir Singh [SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 92] , Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] , Union of India v. Shashank Goswami [Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 51] , SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi [SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 689] and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] .] 11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has virtually rewritten the terms of the Policy and has issued a direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfil the terms of the Policy. This is impermissible. 13. Compassionate appointment is to be made strictly in accordance with policy framed by Government in this regard and it has to be read and applied as it is. The Division Bench of this Court in WPS No. 223/2022 (Manish Kurre Vs. State of C.G.) and connected matters has observed that clause 6A under the consolidated guidelines/ circular cannot be expanded. The challenge made 9 against Clause 6A in WPS No. 561/2022 (Rachana Darwade vs. State of Chhattisgarh) as void and inoperative being arbitrary and discriminatory and further prayer, to direct the authority to reconsider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.09.2022. The writ petition was dismissed. 14. In the given facts of the case, decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as also order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Rachana Darwade (supra), I am of the considered view that Respondent No.3 has not committed any illegality in rejecting application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment recording that petitioner is not entitled in terms of Clause 6A of consolidated Instructions 2016 as his brother is already in government employment. 15. For the foregoing, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by Respondent No. 3 rejecting the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 16. Writ petition being devoid of any substance, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram