1 CGHC010002472017 2026:CGHC:29086 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5916 of 2017 Yuvraj Dahariya S/o Late Shri Ram Kumar Dahariya, Aged About 24 Years R/o A-169, Nature City Uslapur, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State, Agricultural Marketing Mandi Board, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Viparan Board Raipur, Beej Bhawan, G.E.Road Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director, Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chhattisgarh State Krishi Viparan Board Divisional office Nabin Mandi Prangan Pandari Tarai Kapa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Chandra Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate For respective Respondent(s) : Mr. T. L. Bareth, Panel Lawyer, Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 21.07.2015 passed by the respondent no 2 and pleased to order for compassionate appointment of the petitioner or his mother as per policy of the compassionate appointment of the state government. 10.2 That the, any other reliefs which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner namely, late Shri Ramkumar Dahariya, was initially appointed as a Mandi Inspector in the year 1991 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Mandi Secretary under the Chhattisgarh State Krishi Viparan Board, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhatgaon, District Baloda Bazar; he died in harness on 12.11.2014. He would further submit that on 07.01.2015, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment before the competent authority but same was rejected vide order dated 21.07.2015 on the ground that his elder brother namely Yogendra Dahariya is in government service. He would contend that mother of the petitioner also made application for compassionate appointment, and same was also rejected on 13.08.2015. He would further contend that elder brother of the petitioner namely Yogendra Dahariya serving with the State, is a son of the deceased from his first wife. He would also contend that Yogendra Dahariya is residing separately and no financial assistance is being provided by him to the family of the petitioner; thus, he would pray that the writ petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member of the deceased government servant is already employed in government service, no other family member is eligible for 3 compassionate appointment. The State counsel further relies on the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the policy does not envisage any inquiry into the financial condition of other family members, and eligibility has to be decided strictly as per the policy. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 5. In the matter of Smt. Muniya Mukharjee (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate appointments, has clearly held that if any member of the family of a deceased government servant is already in government service, no other member of the family is eligible for a compassionate appointment. Further an inquiry into the financial condition of dependents is not envisaged in the policy, therefore, no such direction can be issued. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below: "13. Clause 6A of the Scheme reads as follows: "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 parents, 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) mother, brother and sister." 15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would go to show that it does not envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee 4 who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment." 6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the contention of the petitioner that the elder son of the deceased employee is residing separately and is not providing any financial assistance to the family cannot constitute a valid ground to circumvent the express prohibition contained in Clause 6A of the policy. 7. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner's elder brother is already serving in Government service. Clause 6A of circular dated 29.08.2016 provides that where any member of the family of the deceased Government servant is already employed in Government service, no other family member shall be entitled to compassionate appointment. 8. The petitioner has neither challenged the validity of the said policy nor questioned the applicability of Clause 6A. The petitioner has nowhere stated that Yogendra Dahariya is not the son of the deceased employee. It is pleaded that Yogendra Dahariya is step brother of the petitioner and son from first wife of the deceased Government servant; thus, he squarely falls within the definition of "family" under the policy. 9. It is well settled that a claim for compassionate appointment must be considered strictly in accordance with the policy prevailing on the date 5 of consideration. The Court cannot direct the grant of compassionate appointment in contravention of the applicable policy. 10.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure P/1). 11.Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim