1 2025:CGHC:54693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6064 of 2023 1 - Ku. Uma Jamde D/o Late Deenuram Jamde Aged About 25 Years R/o House No.91, Ward No.17, Village Parasghat Post Koraam Tola Tehsil Mohla, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Development Commissioner Office Of Development Commissioner, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, (South Bastar) Dantewada (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Geedam District (South Bastar) Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10.11.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 10/05/2022 and direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him appointment on compassionate grounds. 10.2 That, the impugned policy dated 29.08.2016 to the extent of total exclusion of members of family of the deceased employee for grating compassionate appointment, if already another member is employee as government servant without considering the dependency factor may be declared as illegal and arbitrary and consequently be quashed. 10.3 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased government employee who died in harness on 09.10.2018. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment in accordance with the prevailing policy of the State Government. However, the respondent authorities have illegally rejected her application on the ground that the petitioner’s stepmother is already employed in government service, relying upon a circular issued by the State Government. It is further submitted that the said rejection is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, as the circular in question is per se illegal and contrary to the very object of providing financial relief to the dependents of the deceased 3 employee. Learned counsel further argues that the stepmother cannot be treated as a relative or dependent in such a manner as to deprive the petitioner of her legitimate right to compassionate appointment, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent–State submits that the circular issued by the State Government clearly defines the term ‘family member’ which includes stepmother, and therefore, she falls within the ambit of the deceased employee’s family. It is contended that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rightly rejected in accordance with the said circular, which specifically bars grant of compassionate appointment when any one of the family members of the deceased employee is already in government service or already granted compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that this legal position has been conclusively settled by this Court in several decisions, including Writ Appeal No. 199 of 2022 and other connected matters decided on 19.09.2022; wherein it has been held that in such circumstances, no other dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to compassionate appointment. It is also urged that the petitioner, being now married and residing with her husband, cannot be treated as a dependent family member of the deceased employee and, therefore, is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment under the prevailing policy. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 199 of 2022 and other connected matters, it is well settled that when one of the family members of the deceased employee is already in government service, other members of the family are not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. The said legal position is firmly established and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, in view of the settled legal principles and the material available on record, the present petition is devoid of merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, this petition is hereby Dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena