1 2025:CGHC:59126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13649 of 2025 1 - Omprakash Nag S/o Late Budhram Nag Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Village - Dugdugiya, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Panchayat, Directorate Of Panchayat, Sector - 19, North Block, Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Director Panchayat, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 05/12 /2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing memo dated dated 19.08.2025 issued by respondent No. 3 by which the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the count that his sister is in government service, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father namely Budhram Nag was working as Assistant Internal Audit & Taxation Officer and posted at Janpad Panchayat- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur who died on 01.11.2020. After death of his father, the ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.08 11:36:01 +0530 2 petitioner has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment as his sister who is in government service but she is residing separately and having separate ration card, therefore, rejecting his claim for grant of compassionate appointment on the count that his sister is in government service, is bad in law and would pray for setting aside the memo dated 19.08.2025. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner’s sister may be living separately but the relationship between them will not come to an end by living separately as defined in the circular issued by the Statement Government in this regard, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 5. The said issue whether one of the family member who resides separately is in government job, then dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to get compassionate appointment or not, has been examined by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Umesh Thakur [Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022 (decided on 21.06.2023)] wherein it has been held at paragraph 15 & 16 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 3 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 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.” 16. In conclusion, we hold that Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) was rightly decided by Division Bench of this Court laying down the correct law. The reference is answered accordingly.” 6. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Umesh Thakur (supra) and the petitioner’s sister is in government service, order of rejection of application for compassionate appointment is affirmed and the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun