1 2025:CGHC:59007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5738 of 2021 1 - Kaushal Kant Pilley S/o Shri R.S. Pilley, Aged About 26 Years R/o Balajitoli Ward No. 13, Jashpur Nagar (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Health Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Adv For Respondent(s) : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 04/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s):- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ /direction to quash the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) directing the respondent to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.] 10.2 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the possession of respondents for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the interest 2 of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner Late Smt. Sumitra Indwar (Pilley), was employed as L.H.V. Class-III in District Hospital Jashpur under the respondents and died in harness on 19.12.2015. She further submits that the petitioner and his sister were wholly dependent upon the deceased and after death of his mother, the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment which has been forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. As the initial application was not decided, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.4559/ 2017 which was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioner to make a representation. Thereafter the petitioner made the representation which was turned down by the respondents vide order dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure P-1) rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment. She further submits that the respondents rejected the application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the father of the petitioner is working as Head Master in Primary School in District Jashpur, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. She submits that even if the father of petitioner is working, as the petitioner is the son of the deceased/employee, his candidature ought to have been considered. It is therefore prayed that appropriate relief may be granted in favour of the petitioner by directing consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with law. 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 3 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 father is working as Head Master in Primary School. Meaning thereby the 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 4 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. 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 mother of the petitioner died in the year 2015, 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 compassionate appointment. In view of this provision, the petitioner would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, as his father has 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 9. No costs. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput)\ JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.12.06 12:23:36 +0530