1 CGHC010205052022 2026:CGHC:36227 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4336 of 2022 1 - Dilip Kumar Kowachi S/o Late Shri Puran Lal Kowachi Aged About 35 Years R/o Village, Post, Gotatola, Tahsil Mohla, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Directorate Of Health Services Chhattisgarh Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Medical Officer Community Health Center Mohla, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Ashwell Franklin, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: NIRMALA RAO 2 “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and quash/set-aside the (Annexure P/1) letter/order dated 06.07.2021 issued/passed by the respondent no.3; 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction commanding the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner; and 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely, Puran Lal Kowachi, was a Class III employee (NMA) posted at the Community Health Centre, Mohla, District Rajnandgaon. He died in harness on 20.2.2021, leaving behind his wife and three sons. In November 2021, the petitioner’s mother also died. Chyavan Kumar, the brother of the petitioner, is in government service and has been residing separately with his family for a long time. He has never provided any financial support to the family. 3. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in April 2021. A reminder letter was sent by the petitioner on 30.4.2021. He was directed, vide letter dated 18.6.2021, to furnish information as to whether any of his family members was employed in government service. The petitioner duly furnished the information on 26.6.2021, stating that his brother, Chyavan Kumar, was in government service. 4. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 6.7.2021 on the ground that one of the family members, 3 i.e. the petitioner’s brother, was in government service and, in terms of Clause 6A of the Policy for Compassionate Appointment, the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that respondent No.3 rejected the application submitted by the petitioner without conducting any enquiry into the petitioner’s financial status. He would contend that the petitioner’s brother, Chyavan Kumar, resides separately with his family and has never provided any financial assistance to the dependent family. He would further contend that, in the matter of Nilesh Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, passed in W.P. (S) No.3580 of 2021, it has been held that the policy for compassionate appointment must be read down and can be applied only after an enquiry is conducted by the respondents to ascertain the petitioner’s dependency status and the extent of support, if any, being provided to the petitioner by his brothers. He would, therefore, pray for quashing of the order dated 6.7.2021 (Annexure-P/1). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that, as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 14.6.2013 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. Learned State counsel further relies upon the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically held that the policy does not envisage any enquiry 4 into the financial condition of other family members and that eligibility is to be determined strictly in accordance with the terms of the policy. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 8. In the matter of Muniya Bai (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 5 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." 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. Courts cannot direct appointments that are contrary to the policy in force. 10. However, it is also noted that the brother of the petitioner, namely Chyavan Kumar is in government service and therefore, in view of Clause 6A of the Policy, 2013, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 11.Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned letter dated 6.7.2021 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi