2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 3419 of 2022 Uttam Singh Joshi S/o Late Shri Harbansh Das Joshi, R/o Village Sankra, Post Kapsda, Police Station Kumhari, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of General Administration , Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2-Collector Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police District Durg Chhattisgarh. Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. Heard. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order/communication dated 30/07/2018 (Annexure P/1) by which the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father (Harbansh Das Joshi) was working as Head Constable with the respondent and died in harness on 12/04/2018. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected by the impugned order/communication, inter-alia stating that his elder brother Nand Kumar Joshi is working as Constable No.1610, District – Durg and is ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.12 16:52:24 +0530 -2- government employee. In view of clause 13(1) of the policy of the State Government for compassionate appointment dated 14/06/2013 and instruction given in circular dated 29/08/2016, the application of the petitioner cannot be granted for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the brother of the petitioner is living separately and the petitioner was only dependent upon the income of the deceased/father. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is bad in law and requires to be set aside. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the State submits that as the brother of the petitioner is already in the Government service, in light of the relevant provisions of the Policy for compassionate appointment dated 29/08/2016 and 23/02/2019. The rejection of application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is well founded. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 236/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur) dated 21/06/2023. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner’s father was working as Head Constable with the respondents and died in harness. It is also not in dispute that the brother of the petitioner is also working as Head Constable with the respondents. The rejection of the petitioner’s application is on the ground that as his brother (family member) is a Government Servant in light of the provisions of the Policy of the State Government for compassionate appointment, he is not entitled for the same. 7. This issue is no longer res-integra in light of judgment of this Court in W.A. No.236/2022, wherein this Court in paragraph 15 is observe as under:- “15.In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra), Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) and the reference -3- answered by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha (supra) answering the issue involved in this reference and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Parkash Chand’s case (supra) and Nitin's case (supra), 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 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 -4- 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. 8. Thus settled legal position as enumerated by this Court, this writ petition has no merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. All the pending applications are also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish