1 CGHC010354712021 2026:CGHC:31683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7145 of 2021 Sunita Kaushik W/o Mahendr Kumar Kaushik Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Mendra, Post- Saida, Teh.- Sakri Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1- State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Commercial Tax (Registration) Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, 492002. 2-District Registrar, Distt- Kabirdham (C.G.). 3- Deputy Registrar, Pandariya, Distt- Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authority to conduct enquiry to the extent of maintenance by the member of family. 10.2. Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favor of the Petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner, late Anuj Ram Kaushik, was appointed as Peon in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) on 26.12.1990. He would further submit that father of the petitioner died in harness on 26.07.2019. After the death of her father, the Petitioner herein- Smt. Sunita Kaushik, moved an application for compassionate appointment before respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 decided the representation on 21.10.2021, which was communicated to the petitioner on 26.10.2024. The Respondent No. 2 mechanically rejected the claim of the petitioner, stating that though the Petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for appointment on a Class IV post, but she being a married daughter, is ineligible for compassionate appointment as per the existing policy and scheme; thus, he would pray that the 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 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. 3 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 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 4 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 the present case, it is an admitted position that son of the deceased employee namely Sunil Kumar Kaushik is already in Government Service i.e. AG-3 in CG Government Commercial Tax (GST) Department. 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. 7. The petitioner has neither challenged the validity of the said policy nor questioned the applicability of Clause 6A. 8. It is well settled that a claim for compassionate appointment must be considered strictly in accordance with the policy prevailing on the date of consideration. The Court cannot direct the grant of compassionate appointment in contravention of the applicable policy. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order. 10.Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim