1 2025:CGHC:59220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6629 of 2018 1 - Purshottam Kumar Dubey S/o. Late Shri Ram Snehi Dubey Aged About 30 Years Village Birkona, Post Koni P.S. Koni District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest Aaranya Bhawan Atal Nagar, P.S. Naya Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, P.S. Naya Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv along with Ms. Varsha Sharma, Adv For Respondent(s) : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 05/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s):- 10.1 That, the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner be called for perusal. 10.2 To issue appropriate writ/ order to respondents for consideration of application of petitioner for his compassionate appointment in its right perspective. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.12.08 11:19:44 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner Late Shri Ram Sanehi Dubey S/o Ram Phal Dubey was employed as Senior Technical Officer, in Karya Ayojan, Forest Division Bilaspur under the respondents and died in harness on 07.01.2018. He further submits that the petitioner was wholly dependent upon the deceased and after death of his father, the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected vide order dated 13.04.2018 Annexure P-4. He submits that the only ground which is mentioned in the rejection order is that another family member of the deceased/employee is already in Government service, therefore, the case of the petitioner was not considered. Though his two elder brothers are in Government service and they are residing separately and the petitioner was wholly dependent upon the income of the deceased/employee (father), therefore, this impugned order may be set aside and the relief as claimed may be granted. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The rejection of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is on the count that his two elder brothers are in Government service. Meaning thereby the 3 petitioner’s family member is in Government service. Following observations has been made in WA No.236 of 2022 in Para 15 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 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 4 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. 6. 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 2018, and at that time, policy of compassionate appointment dated 14.06.2013 issued by the State Government, was in force and as per Clause 6(A) 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 compassionate appointment. In view of this provision, the petitioner would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, as his two elder brothers were already employed in Government service. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 9. No costs. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul