1 2025:CGHC:61197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3191 of 2022 1 - Ku. Yogeshwari Suryavanshi D/o Late D.L. Kango Aged About 31 Years R/o Near B.S.N.L. Tower, Kargi Road, Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Distirct Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Block Education Officer, Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Principal Government High School, Sajapali, Block Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Adv For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G. A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. Challenge in this petition is to an order dated 05.01.2022 by which the services of the petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Grade-3 at Government High School Sajapali, Development Block Kota, District- Bilaspur (CG) was terminated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner Late D. L. Kango was working as Head Master in Govt. Primary School Biltikad 2 (Kota) District Bilaspur (CG) under the respondents and died in harness on 19.04.2021. She further submits that the petitioner was wholly dependent upon the deceased and after death of her father, the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment, her application was exceeded to by the respondents and vide order dated 02.06.2021 (Annexure P- 2) she was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-3. In pursuance to that appointment order, she joined her services and was performing her duties with sincerity and honesty. Without giving her proper opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed on the ground that other relatives i.e. brother and sister of the petitioner are working in Government service, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was bad in law thus resulted into passing of the impugned order. She submits that the respondents were required to conduct a departmental enquiry before issuance of such an order, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside reinstating the petitioner in back in service. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that while filling up the form for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has suppressed the fact that her sister and brother are working as Lecturer (LB) Hindi and teacher respectively and the compassionate appointment has to be made strictly according to the policy framed by the employer in this regard and the State Government has framed the policy dated 14.06.2013 amended from time to time and according to the provisions, any family member of the deceased/employee in the Government service, the case of compassionate appointment would not be considered. He placed reliance upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Umesh Thakur passed in WA No.236 of 2022 dated 21.06.2023. She further submits that suppressing the material facts, the application was made and when the complaint was 3 made against such appointment, the petitioner was given a show cause notice and after due enquiry, the impugned order was passed. 4. In rejoinder, Ms. Vanak submits that the judgment which has been relied upon by State counsel is of the year 2023 whereas the appointment of the petitioner is of 2021, therefore, respondents cannot place reliance on such judgment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner’s father was serving as a Head Master in a Government School under the respondents and died in harness. It is also undisputed that the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment, showing three members of the deceased/ employee in the relevant column. However, a perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner suppressed the material fact that other family members of deceased/ employee are in Government service. Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel is not in a position to dispute the fact that the petitioner’s brother and sister are currently in Government service. 7. The Full Bench of this Court in WA No.236 of 2022 at Para 15, held 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 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 4 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 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. The law governing compassionate appointment is well settled. It is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and cannot be granted dehors the provisions contained in the compassionate appointment policy framed by the State Government. The father of the petitioner died in the year 2021, and at that time, policy of compassionate appointment dated 14.06.2013 issued by the State Government, was in force and as per Clause 5 & 6 of the said policy, if any family member of the deceased Government employee is already in Government service, no other family member shall be entitled to 5 compassionate appointment. In view of this provision, the petitioner would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, as her brother and sister are already employed in Government service. Therefore, where the petitioner fails to make an application disclosing the correct facts, she cannot take advantage of the fact that an inquiry was not conducted. Furthermore, since the appointment of the petitioner was itself in violation of the statutory policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. Thus, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement and the provisions of the prevailing compassionate appointment policy, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 11. No costs. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.12.19 11:12:48 +0530