1 CGHC010305252021 2026:CGHC:30262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6425 of 2021 1 - Shrawan Singh S/o Late Shri Surendra Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. D-70, Abhishek Vihar, Phase-I, Mangla Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Director General Police, Police Headquarters, Ground Floor, Block -1, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Zonal Inspector General Of Police Special Branch, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None appears even in second round For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ to of appropriate nature do issue directing the respondent authorities concerned produce all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue to the Respondents Authorities and quash/set aside the order dated 31-07-2021 bearing number VISHA/1/STHA/2021-2(676)NAWA RAIPUR passed by the respondent no. 1 ANNEXURE in the facts and P-2 circumstances of the case. 10.3. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue to the Respondents Authorities to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner after following the due process of law. 10.4. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature directing respondent authority to consider the application for compassionate appointment after conducting due and proper enquiry with regard to 2 aspect of dependency and financial assistance provided by the employed person, within time frame as prescribed by Hon'ble Court. 10.5. Cost of the proceedings. 10.6. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.” 3. The facts in brief are that father of the petitioner, namely late Surendra Singh, who was working on the post of Inspector (SB) Mungeli Bilaspur under the Police Department died in harness on 03.05.2021. The petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment and same was rejected on the ground that one of the family members of the deceased employee is already in government service. The petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment and same was rejected on the ground that elder brother of the petitioner is already in Government service. It is also pleaded that decision of respondent authorities is illegal & bad in law. 4. Mr. Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that according to Clause 6A of the Policy for compassionate appointment vide No. F-7-1/2019/1-3 dated 23.02.2019, if one of the family members of the deceased is already in Government service, any other member of the family would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. He would further submit that the petitioner has not challenged clause 6A of the circular dated 23.02.2019. He would argue that in Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Kevra Bai) and Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee), the Hon’ble Division Bench declined to issue direction to conduct an 3 inquiry regarding financial condition of dependents, holding that there is no such provision in the policy; thus, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 6. In the matter of Smt. Muniya Mukharjee (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while dealing with Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, has categorically held that 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 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 4 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." 7. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner late Surendra Singh died in harness on 03.05.2021. After the death of father of the petitioner, the application for compassionate appointment was submitted and was rejected by respondent No.1/Director General Police, Police Headquarters, Naya Raipur (C.G.) on 31.07.2021 on the ground that one member of the family is already in the Government service. 8. Clause 6A of the Circular dated 23.02.2019 is reproduced herein below:- “6(अ) दिवंगत विवंवं वि त शा सकीय सवंकी की परिवं  में यदि पवं स  परिवं  की कीई अन्य सस्य शा सकीय सवं में , त परिवं  की अन्य विकीस भी सस्य की अनु!कीम्पा विनुय!क्ति$त की प त्रत नु & ग।" 9. Clause 6A was inserted in the policy for compassionate appointment vide circular dated 23.02.2019. The petitioner has not challenged the said circular in the present petition. 10. It is a well-settled principle of law that an application for compassionate appointment must be decided strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha