1 / 7 2026:CGHC:21271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3908 of 2026 Faguram Dhruv S/o Mohanlal Aged About 27 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Near Kumud Kirana Store Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, General Administrative Department, Indravati Bhavan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Commissioner Public Relations- Directorate, Indravati Bhavan, Capital Complex Atal Nager Naya -Raipur -District -Raipur C.G. 3 - The Collector, Raipur- District -Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Neela Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 06/05/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.05.14 10:22:58 +0530 2 / 7 10.2. The Hon'ble court may kindly be please to allow this petition and direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of petitioner and grant compassionate appointment and Family Pension or Death Gratuity amount to him in place of deceased employee in accordance with law. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the brother of the petitioner was under employment with respondent- Department. Petitioner, after death of his brother, has submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment vide Annexure P-3 along with relevant documents including consent letter of his family member. However, his application for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected vide impugned order dated 18th September 2024 and no decision has been taken on the claim of petitioner relating to payment of family pension and death gratuity of deceased employee. He submits that respondents be directed to consider claim of the petitioner at the earliest. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has not placed on record correct facts. After receipt of application submitted for compassionate appointment in the year 2024 it was processed, opinion was sought for from the General Administration Department and decision was taken on his application, and it was rejected vide order dated 18th September 2024, copy of which was also forwarded to 3 / 7 mother of deceased employee. Claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that one of the family member of the deceased- employee is already in government service taking note of Clause 6A of the Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment – 2013 (for short “Consolidated Instructions of 2013”). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is brother of the deceased employee who was working with the respondent department and died in harness on 30.01.2023. Perusal of the impugned order would show that claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected in view of provision under Clause 6 (A) of the Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment – 2013 (for short “Consolidated Instructions of 2013”), which is reproduced as under: “6A. In the family of the deceased married government servant, if any other member of the family is already in government service, then the other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Explanation- Dependents of the family of deceased married and unmarried government servant shall include the following members: A) In case of married government servant – Dependent mother, dependent father, widow/widower, son and daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) 4 / 7 – dependent father, mother, brother and sister.” 6. Perusal of the above provision clearly stipulates that compassionate appointment shall not be granted to the member of the family as categorized therein if any other member of the family is already in government employment. It clearly provides that Family Member means Family Member of deceased employee. From perusal of the impugned order dated 18th September 2024 rejecting application of the petitioner clearly shows that on the date of death of deceased employee, his father was already in government employment. 7. The issue as to whether this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is empowered to direct the State Government to hold an enquiry qua the dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant, who is already in Govt. service, to the dependent of the deceased government servant claiming compassionate appointment is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by this Court. 8. Application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the guidelines framed by the State Govt. Courts would not rewrite the terms of the guidelines as it is in exclusive domain of State Government. 9. In the case of State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur Full Bench of this Court while answering reference to the question “when any dependent family member of deceased employee is already 5 / 7 in Government service, in that circumstances whether any other member of the family would be deprived for employment on compassionate ground, without consideration of dependency of family on such Government employee” , taking note of the decisions rendered by Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.334/2021 decided on 10.12.2021, State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey and Anr. (Writ Appeal No.91 of 2022, decided on 23.02.2022, reference answered by another Division Bench in case of Purendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (WPS No.6689 of 2018 decided on 12.01.2022) and in the light of principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh and Anr Vs. Prakash Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285 and Central Bank of India Vs. Nitin (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873), held 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 6 / 7 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.” 10. For the foregoing discussions, in view of the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above and taking note of the relevant policy i.e. Compassionate Appointment Instructions-2013, amended in the year 2016, which clearly provides that compassionate appointment shall not be granted to the member of the family as categorized therein if any other member of the family is already in government employment, I do not find any error in rejecting the application filed by petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. Claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is rejected. 11. So far as the claim of the petitioner for extending the other monetary benefit upon death of an employee is concerned, upon consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any document whatsoever to demonstrate that any representation/application was ever submitted before the competent authority claiming the benefit requesting redressal of the grievance prior to filing of present writ petition. In above facts, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to submit appropriate application, along with other person entitled for the said benefit and if such application is submitted, concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within three months 7 / 7 from the date of receipt of representation. 12. For the foregoing discussions, writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen