1 CGHC010207042021 2026:CGHC:28797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4413 of 2021 Judgment Reserved On : 01.07.2026. Judgment Delivered On : 10.07.2026. 1 - Smt. Rukhmani Mandavi W/o Late Devji Mandavi Aged About 54 Years. 2 – Umesh Mandavi S/o Late Devji Mandavi, aged about 21 years, both are R/o Village Jhipatola, Post Lakhanpuri, P. S. Charama, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Deputy Director General Of Police Armed Force South Range (Bastar) Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commandant 9th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force Dantewada District Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Avit Lakra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 31.7.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.3 whereby application of Petitioner No.1, who is stated to be second wife of deceased, for grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner no.2 on account of death of his father who was AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.10 18:05:39 +0530 2 posted as Head Constable, has been rejected on the ground that son of first wife of Late Devji Mandavi namely Himeshwar Mandavi is posted as Constable (G.D.) in District Force Kanker and as per circular dated 23.2.2019 petitioner no.2 is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that late Shri Devji Mandavi was initially appointed as a Constable in the Chhattisgarh Police and was subsequently promoted to the post of Head Constable. At the relevant time, he was serving under Respondent No. 3. During the course of his service, he died in harness on 11.05.2016, leaving behind his legal heirs and dependents. The deceased is survived by his first wife, Smt. Ganga Mandavi, and his second wife, Smt. Rukhmani Mandavi. From the first wife, he had three children, including his eldest son, Himeshwar Mandavi, who was appointed as a Constable in the Chhattisgarh Police on 19.12.2008 and is presently posted in District Force, Kanker. The other two children from the first wife are unemployed. The petitioners are the second wife of the deceased, Smt. Rukhmani Mandavi (Petitioner No. 1), and her son, Umesh Mandavi (Petitioner No. 2). During his lifetime, Late Shri Devji Mandavi was residing with the petitioners, who were wholly dependent upon his income. Petitioner No. 2 was born on 27.05.2000 and was a minor on the date of the death of the deceased. He passed the Board of Secondary Education Examination in the year 2016 and is otherwise eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. Immediately after the demise of the deceased, Petitioner No. 1 submitted an application dated 13.07.2016 before Respondent No. 3 seeking compassionate appointment and release of retiral benefits. In the application, she specifically stated that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased and that their 3 marriage had been solemnized about twenty years prior thereto. Since Petitioner No. 2 was then a minor, the application was submitted with a view to preserving his claim under the prevailing Compassionate Appointment Policy. At the time of submission of the application, Petitioner No. 2 was approximately 16 years of age. He attained the age of majority on 26.05.2018, thereby becoming eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment in accordance with the policy applicable on the date of death of the deceased employee. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2, by communication dated 26.07.2021, forwarded the case of the petitioners to Respondent No. 3 for taking appropriate action regarding compassionate appointment of Petitioner No. 2. The family of Himeshwar Mandavi, the son of the first wife, has been residing separately from the petitioners even during the lifetime of the deceased. The petitioners were maintaining a separate household and were entirely dependent upon the earnings of Late Shri Devji Mandavi. After his demise, the petitioners have been facing severe financial hardship, and Petitioner No. 1 has been compelled to work under the Chhattisgarh Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojana merely to sustain the family. On the date of death of Late Shri Devji Mandavi, i.e., 11.05.2016, the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 14.06.2013 was in force. Clause 15(8) of the said policy specifically provided that where the widow of the deceased government servant expressed her inability to accept compassionate appointment and there existed a minor dependent in the family, such minor could be considered for appointment upon attaining majority. The policy did not contain any provision disentitling a dependent merely because another family member was already employed in government service. Subsequently, by 4 amendment issued in August 2016, Clauses 6 and 6A were inserted in the policy, providing that where any member of the family of the deceased government servant was already in government service, no other member would be entitled to compassionate appointment. These amendments came into force only after the death of Late Shri Devji Mandavi and, therefore, were not applicable to the petitioners' case. However, Respondent No. 3, by order dated 31.07.2021, rejected the claim of the petitioners solely on the ground that Himeshwar Mandavi, the son of the first wife of the deceased, was already serving in the Government. The impugned order failed to consider that the applicable policy on the date of death was the Policy dated 14.06.2013, under which no such disqualification existed. The order also incorrectly referred to a circular dated 23.02.2019, although the relevant amendments had been introduced in August 2016. The action of the respondents is contrary to the settled principle of law that claims for compassionate appointment are to be considered in accordance with the policy prevailing on the date of death of the government servant. Petitioner No. 2 fulfills all other eligibility conditions for compassionate appointment. The petitioners have no independent source of livelihood, continue to suffer financial distress, and the rejection of their claim solely on the basis of a subsequent amendment is illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside. Hence this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Respondent No.3 has not considered the fact that Clause 6 and 6 A of the policy was amended /added and the same came into force only from the date 29/08/2016 and the said provision was not available at the time of death of deceased i.e. on 5 11/05/2016 and even at the time of filing of application dated 13/07/2016 requesting for compassionate appointment. It is well settled law that the case of compassionate appointment has to be decided on the basis of prevailing policy which was in existence at the time of death on 11/05/ 2016 of late Devji Mandavi and at the time of filing of the application dated 13/07/2016 requesting for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the conditional restraint mentioned in the circular dated 29/08/2016 will not come in the way in deciding the application of the Petitioners for compassionate appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue regarding applicability of the amendment in the case where Government servant has died prior to date of policy is no longer res integra as this Court in WPS No. 7032/2017 decided on 14/11/2019 has held that in circular/ policy dated 14/06/2013 there was no such condition that if any member of the family of the deceased is in government service then compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as the said condition was subsequently inserted vide circular dated 29/08/2016. As such, such a condition is not applicable in the present petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that a bare perusal of the Circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the General Administration Department which is an updated compilation of instructions regarding compassionate appointment demonstrates that the said amendment was intended to operate retrospectively, i.e. with effect from 14.06.2013 itself. Learned State counsel submits that the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 199 of 2022, has categorically held that the policy which is in force at the time of consideration of the application of compassionate 6 appointment is the relevant policy. This Court has further held that compassionate appointment must be strictly governed by the conditions stipulated in the applicable policy. The policy in force at the time of the application of compassionate appointment made by the petitioners herein was circular dated 14.06.2013, the amended Clause 6A which was added vide notification dated 29.08.2016, and the updated compilation circular dated 23.02.2019. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition carefully. 7. The short question that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment is liable to be considered in accordance with the Compassionate Appointment Policy prevailing on the date of death of the deceased employee or in accordance with the policy as subsequently amended on 29.08.2016 and incorporated in the consolidated circular dated 23.02.2019. 8. The facts are not in dispute. Late Shri Devji Mandavi died in harness on 11.05.2016 while serving as Head Constable under the respondents. On the date of his death, the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 14.06.2013 was in force. Petitioner No.1 submitted an application on 13.07.2016 seeking compassionate appointment in favour of petitioner No.2, who was then a minor. Petitioner No.2 attained the age of majority on 26.05.2018, whereafter his claim came to be processed and was ultimately rejected by the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 solely on the ground that Himeshwar Mandavi, the son of the deceased from his first wife, was already serving as a Constable in the Police Department. 7 9. A perusal of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 14.06.2013 reveals that Clause 15(8) specifically contemplated a situation where the dependent eligible for compassionate appointment was a minor on the date of death of the Government servant. The policy permitted preservation of such claim until the dependent attained majority. Significantly, the policy did not contain any provision disentitling a dependent merely because another member of the family was already employed in Government service. 10.It is only by notification dated 29.08.2016 that Clauses 6 and 6A came to be inserted in the policy providing that where any member of the family of the deceased Government servant was already in Government service, no other dependent would be entitled to compassionate appointment. The impugned order has been passed by applying the said amended provision as reflected in the consolidated circular dated 23.02.2019. 11.It is equally well settled that a claim for compassionate appointment is required to be examined in accordance with the policy which governed the field on the date when the cause of action arose, namely, the death of the Government servant. The rights and obligations of the parties crystallize on that date. Where the policy itself protects the claim of a minor dependent by permitting consideration upon attaining majority, the subsequent introduction of a disqualifying condition cannot defeat such accrued right unless the amendment specifically provides otherwise. 12. The impugned order proceeds entirely on the premise that Himeshwar Mandavi, the son of the deceased from his first wife, is already serving in Government service. Such a ground was not available under the policy in 8 force on 11.05.2016, i.e. policy dated 14.06.2013. The competent authority has failed to consider the relevant policy applicable to the petitioners' case and has instead applied a subsequent amendment to their prejudice. The exercise undertaken by the respondents is therefore contrary to the governing policy and cannot be sustained in law. 13.The contention of the respondents that the consolidated circular dated 23.02.2019 is applicable to all pending cases cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. A consolidated circular cannot retrospectively extinguish a claim which had arisen under an earlier policy. Acceptance of such contention would result in denial of the benefit expressly available to minor dependents under Clause 15(8) of the Policy dated 14.06.2013 and would render the protection afforded thereunder wholly illusory. 14. Needless to mention that this Court in order dated 14.11.2019 passed in WPS No.7032 of 2017, when faced with a similar issue, had made the following direction in paragraph 4, which reads thus:- 4. In view of the aforesaid dictum laid down since the father of the petitioner died on 27.05.2015 on that date the circular dated 29.08.2016 was not in existence, consequently, the order of denial of compassionate appointment on the threshold by 11.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Accordingly the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the policy dated 14.06.2013. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 has been passed by applying an inapplicable policy and, therefore, suffers from patent illegality and 9 arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.07.2021 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 14.06.2013, which was in force on the date of death of Late Shri Devji Mandavi, without taking into consideration the disqualification introduced by the amendment dated 29.08.2016 or the consolidated circular dated 23.02.2019. The respondents shall pass a fresh, reasoned order within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 18.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the fulfillment of any other eligibility condition under the applicable policy, and it shall be open to the respondents to examine the same in accordance with law. If petitioner No.2 is found otherwise eligible, consequential benefits shall follow in accordance with the applicable policy. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 01.07.2026 10.07.2026 ------ 10.07.2026