1 2026:CGHC:26079 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9383 of 2022 * - Nitish Sharma S/o Late Radheshyam Sharma, aged about 23 years R/o 1st BNCAF Line, Ward No. 60, Katulbod, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Director General of Police, PHQ, near Mantralaya, Sector 19, Atal Nagar- Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 3 – Inspector General of Police, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, North Range, Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 4 – Commandant 12th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Ramnujganj, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.V. Shridhar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the amendment inserted to Policy of compassionate appointment dated 29.08.2016 and subsequent order passed by the respondent No. 4 dated 14.07.2021. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Radheshyam Sharma was posted on the post of Head Constable (GD) under the respondent No. 4, who died in harness on 27.04.2021. His date of retirement was 30.04.2021. The Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.01 15:22:39 +0530 2 petitioner herein moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities and same has been rejected by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 14.07.2021 on the ground that one of the dependents of deceased-government servant is already in government service and therefore, according to the provisions of Clause 6(A) of Policy for compassionate appointment, the the application of the petitioner cannot be considered. The petitioner has challenged the amendment inserted to Clause 6(A) dated 29.08.2016, which states that if one of the dependents of the deceased-government servant is already in government service, any other member would not be entitled for consideration. 3. Mr. A.V. Shridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that elder son of the deceased-government servant is working on the post of Constable (GD) and residing separately along with his wife and children. He would submit that he has been living separately prior to date of death of his father and he never financially assisted the deceased-government servant or his family. It is argued that the amendment inserted on 29.08.2016 defeats the very purpose for grant of compassionate appointment, particularly in cases where other members of the family are residing separately. He would refer definition of ‘Family’ given in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, which reads as under:- 1. A group of persons connected by blood, by affinity or by law esp. within two or three generations. 2. A group consisting of parents and their children. 3. A group of persons who live together and have a shared commitment to a domestic relationship. See RELATIVE. – amilial, adj. 3 Mr. A.V.Shridhar would argue that the family of the deceased- government servant and family of his elder son namely Hemant Sharma were and are residing separately and they are nucleus family, therefore, the bar contained in Clause 6(A) of the Policy is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the respondent authorities ought to have conducted an enquiry before rejecting the claim with regard to compassionate appointment. He would pray to quash the newly added Clause 6(A) of Policy for compassionate appointment dated 29.08.2016 and subsequent order of rejection of petitioner’s claim dated 14.07.2021. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. Mr. Anmol Sharma would submit that the courts should not interfere with the soundness and wisdom of the policy. He would contend that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as matter of right. The object and purpose of the compassionate appointment is the immediacy of the financial crisis occurred as a result of death of breadwinner. It is also contend that if in the family there is already a member who is employed then it cannot be presumed that family is not able to meet the financial crisis. He would submit that appointment on the ground of compassion is an exception and cannot be made as a rule and relaxation in aforesaid pre-conditions would open a floodgate of appointments on compassionate grounds. Mr. Anmol Sharma would further contend that the elder brother of the petitioner is already in government service and therefore his claim has rightly been rejected. He would refer the 4 judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in WA No. 236 of 2022 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur dated 21.06.2023 wherein validity of Clause 6(A) has already been examined. He would submit that the Hon’ble Full Bench held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct to hold an 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 and any such direction would amount to rephrasing / rewording of the terms of applicable scheme. He would submit that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The petitioner has challenged Clause 6(A) of Policy for compassionate appointment dated 29.08.2016 and an order of rejection dated 14.07.2021 on 02 grounds : (i) definition of the family has been extended by Policy maker while including a dependent member of the deceased- government servant, who is government servant and residing separately and (ii) no enquiry was conducted as to whether such an employee is providing any financial assistance to other members of the family or not. It is not case of petitioner that he had abandoned his parents prior to date of demise of his father or immediately after getting job on the post of Constable (GD). The word ‘Family’ includes parents, wife and children. The elder son of the government servant was member of family and even after death of deceased- government servant, he cannot be precluded from such definition. It is true that after marriage, Hemant Sharma was residing 5 separately alongwith his wife and children, but on that ground alone, it cannot be ruled out that he was not part of family of deceased- government servant Radheshyam Sharma. Further this plea was never taken prior rejection of application moved by the petitioner herein for grant of compassionate appointment and, therefore, I am of the view that the amendment inserted in the Policy dated 29.08.2016 is valid. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of General Manager (D&PB) and Others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and Another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 271 while dealing with issue to determine financial condition of family held in paragraph- 7, as under:- “7. In adoption of this principle, an office memorandum was circulated to all banks on 7-8- 1996 emphasising that the observations of this Court would have to be complied with. The Indian Banks’ Association also adopted the directive of this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal case1 in the Scheme which was proposed for appointment of heirs of deceased employees. In that proposal it was recommended that in order to determine the financial condition of the family the following amounts would have to be taken into account: (a) Family pension. (b) Gratuity amount received. (c) Employee’s/employer’s contribution to provident fund. (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee. (f) Income of family from other sources. (g) Employment of other family members. (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc.” 6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court included income from employment of other family members as income of the family alongwith other amounts admissible to said family. 8. In the matter Umesh Thakur (supra) following question was framed by the Hon’ble Full Court of this Court:- “When any dependent family member of deceased employee is already in Government service, in that circumstance 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?” And it was answered in following terms: In State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that direction to consider application for compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased employee dehors policy is impermissible, and observed as under:- “9. The High Court has observed that the State should consider cases for appointment on compassionate basis by dealing with the applications submitted by sons, or as the case may be, daughters of deceased government employees, even though, one member of the family is engaged in the service of the Government or an autonomous Board or Corporation. This direction of the judgment of the High Court virtually amounts to a mandamus to the State Government to disregard the terms which have been stipulated in Para 5(c) of its Policy dated 18-1-1990. The Policy contains a limited exception which is available only to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks compassionate appointment even though one of the children of the 7 deceased employee is gainfully employed with the State. The basis for this exception is to deal with cases where the widow is not being supported financially by her children. 10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana2, SBI v. Kunti Tiwary6 , Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Teneja7, SBI v. Somvir Singh3, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra8, Union of India v. Shashank Goswami9, SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi10 and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar11 .] 11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has virtually rewritten the terms of the Policy and has issued a direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfill the terms of the Policy. This is impermissible.” 9. It is categorically held that 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 members of the deceased-government servant and such attempt would not amount to rephrasing / rewording of the terms of the policy for compassionate appointment. Thus, no order can be issued to conduct an enquiry to find out as to whether such an employee is providing any financial assistance to other member of the 8 family or not. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee which has been left without means of livelihood, but where the family receives sufficient terminal benefits and one of the members of the family is already in government service, claim for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be considered. The compassionate appointment is non-merit based exception designed solely to help surviving dependent of deceased- government servant. It is not a vested hereditarily right, but a targeted relief measure. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the Policy for compassionate appointment dated 29.08.2016 and order passed by respondent No. 4 dated 14.07.2021. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti