1 CGHC010221182019 2026:CGHC:32683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5136 of 2019 1 - Sunayna Kashyap D/o Late Shri Anoop Kumar Kashyap Aged About 37 Years R/o Singh Colony, Near Shankar Mandir (Babul Ambasht), Kedarpur, Ambikaur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thruogh The Secretary, Law And Legislative Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The District And Sessions Judge Koriya, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/State : Dr. Surendra Dewangan, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Gary Mukopadhyay, Advocate 2 SB- Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 29/07/2026 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 25/01/2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 by which petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected holding that her brother namely Manish Kumar Kashyap is already in Government service and thus, in view of the policy dated 29/08/2016, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 is unsustainable and bad in law and is thus liable to be set aside. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Commissioner Municipal Corporation v. Mukund Hela and ors.1 to buttress his submission. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would support the impugned order and submit that the issue at hand has been well settled and concluded in the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Umesh Thakur2 and as such, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 1 2026:CGHC:22157-DB (WA No. 429/2026 decided on 12/05/2026) 2 WA No. 236/2022 decided on 21/06/2023 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. With regard to the issue at hand, the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Umesh Thakur (supra) may be noticed herein profitably wherein it has been held in paragraph 15 as under :- “15. In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke 3 (supra), Kevra Bai Markandey's 4 case (supra) and the reference answered by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha 5 (supra) answering the issue involved in this reference and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Parkash Chand’s 6 case (supra) and Nitin's 7 case (supra), compassionate appointment has to be granted in accordance with the policy applicable and where the policy applicable for compassionate appointment clearly indicates that where one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service then other members of the family of the deceased Government servant would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, then the writ court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct to hold for 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 when a claim is made by another member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rewording / revising the terms of the 3 Neeraj Kumar Uke v. State of Chhattisgarh, WA/334/2021 decided on 10/12/2021 4 State of Chhattisgarh v. Kevra Bai Markandey and Anr., WA/91/2022 decided on 23/02/2022 5 Purendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., WPS/6689/2018 decided on 12/01/2022 6 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285 7 Central Bank of India v. Nitin, 2022 SCC Online SC 1873 4 applicable policy for compassionate appointment, which, in our considered opinion, is wholly impermissible in law. Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated question as under: - When one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then 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 member of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing / rewording of the terms of the applicable scheme / policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred. ” 6. In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, since petitioner’s brother is already in Government service and in view of the policy dated 29/08/2016, respondent No. 2 is absolutely justified in rejecting petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet