1 2026:CGHC:22859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4154 of 2026 Ku. Arti Bargah D/o Late Shri Janak Lal Bargah Aged About 34 Years R/o Mandi Road, Maharani Ward No. 14 Teh. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue Department, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector (Finance Department) Jagadalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Development Block Office Bankavand Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 20/02/2026 issued by respondent no. 2 (Annexure P-1) in the interest of justice. 10.2. This Hon'ble may kindly please to issue the direction to respondents to allow compassionate appointment of RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.05.14 17:38:34 +0530 2 petitioner. 10.3. That this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record. 10.4. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.5. Pass such other and further orders as may deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. 2. Facts in the nutshell are that the father of the petitioner, namely Late Janak Lal Bargah, was a Government servant who had been appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-II vide appointment order dated 09.07.1987 and was posted at Pathragarh Ward, Jagdalpur under the office of Respondent No. 2, where he continued to discharge his duties during the course of his service tenure. During the subsistence of his service period, the petitioner's father unfortunately met with a road accident on 30.12.2025 and expired due to the injuries sustained therein. Thereafter, on account of the death of her father while in service, the petitioner submitted an application dated 27.01.2026 before the competent authority seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the said application came to be rejected by the office of Respondent No. 2 vide order/communication dated 20.02.2026 on the ground that the petitioner's elder sister is a Government employee and, therefore, the petitioner was not found entitled for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved by the rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 3 20.02.2026 passed by the office of Respondent No. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is arbitrary, perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the same has been passed without proper consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner's elder sister had already been married on 09.05.2016 and has been residing in her matrimonial home after marriage and, therefore, cannot be treated as a dependent member of the deceased employee's family for the purpose of denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The respondents further failed to consider that after the unfortunate death of Late Janak Lal Bargah during service, the petitioner, being the eldest unmarried daughter, has the responsibility to maintain and support the remaining family members including her younger siblings. It is further submitted that the petitioner is duly qualified and otherwise eligible for appointment and, therefore, rejection of her claim solely on the basis of employment of her married elder sister defeats the very object and purpose of compassionate appointment, which is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner's claim requires reconsideration in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 91 of 2022 wherein, relying upon the earlier judgment in WA No. 334 of 2021, it has been held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and the claim for 4 such appointment can only be considered strictly in terms of the scheme governing the field. It has further been held that where the scheme itself provides that if any family member is already in Government service, compassionate appointment would not be available, no obligation is cast upon the authorities to ascertain whether such family member is providing financial support or is otherwise dependent upon the deceased employee. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The undisputed facts of the present case reveal that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's elder sister is already in Government employment. The principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that since the elder sister is married and resides in her matrimonial home, she ought not to be considered for the purpose of dis-entitling the petitioner from claiming compassionate appointment. 7. This Court finds that the aforesaid issue stands concluded by the judgment of the Division Bench in WA No. 91 of 2022, wherein it has categorically been held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a vested right and the claim must be adjudicated strictly in accordance with the applicable scheme. It has further been held that once the scheme prescribes disqualification on account of any family member being in Government service, no further enquiry with regard to dependency or financial assistance is required to be undertaken by the authorities. 5 8. Since the petitioner seeks to overcome the disqualification contemplated under the scheme by raising the issue of dependency of the employed family member, the same cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench, which is binding upon this Court. Accordingly, no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned order. 9. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul