1 CGHC010259932026 2026:CGHC:35470-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 691 of 2026 1 - Ranju Kumar Banjare S/o Late Kaushal Prasad Banjare, Aged About 40 Years R/o C.S.E.B. Colony, Surkhi Road, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Daganiya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer (Civil) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 12.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 For the reasons mentioned in the application and finding them to be satisfactory, IA No.01/2026 is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.13 12:22:28 +0530 2 2 Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.6649 of 2022, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, the present writ appeal has been filed. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the father of the appellant, working as Line Attendant, stood died in harness on 27.04.2021. The appellant who is son of the deceased employee, applied for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected on 04.05.2022 on the ground that another son of deceased employee is already in service with the same department. He would contend that the brother of appellant herein was appointed with the respondents prior to death of his father and he was residing separately and never financially assisted the family. The respondent authorities ought to have conducted an inquiry with regard to financial condition of the appellant. He would further contend that the appellant has challenged Clause-6A of the policy for grant of compassionate appointment of the State Government as same is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge has not considered all these facts and therefore the writ appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be directed to be given compassionate appointment. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that since the brother of appellant is already in government job, as such, in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment, the candidature of the appellant has rightly been rejected by learned Single Judge which does not call for any interference. 3 5 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 All said and done, one of the family member i.e. son of the deceased employee already in government service have not been disputed by the appellant. The financial crisis or penury is the basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government. As such, the action of the respondent authorities rejecting the application of the appellant seeking compassionate appointment is justified on the count that brother of the appellant is already in government employment. 7 As regards the scheme for compassionate appointment is concerned, the legal position as it stands, it has been time and again laid down by the Supreme Court as also by this court that the scheme for compassionate appointment can only be considered strictly in accordance with the scheme and policy applicable at the relevant point of time. Moreover, it is also settled position of law that compassionate appointment cannot be considered as another mode of recruitment. The very purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to ensure that the family members of the deceased employee are able to meet the immediate financial crises that they face upon the death of the bread earner in the family. 8 So far as submission of the counsel for the appellant with regard to challenge of Clause-6A of the policy for grant of compassionate appointment issued by the State Government is concerned, the same was challenged before the Division Bench of this court in Rachana Darwade Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and batch of Writ 4 Petitions, leading case of which being WPS No.561 of 2022, in which the Division Bench has observed as under : “41. Reiterating the conclusion in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra) and bearing in mind that compassionate appointment must be governed by terms on which the State lays down the policy offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee, the question posed by the learned Single Judge is answered by observing that this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the State Government to hold an 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 the same would amount to rewriting the terms of the policy.” 9 Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Yash Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, Writ Appeal No.842/2024, vide judgment dated 12.12.2024, has affirmed the order passed by learned Single Judge in which the claim for compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that one of the family member is already in government service. The relevant para is quoted hereinbelow:- “13. Learned Single Judge further held that it is not in dispute that the mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi as such, it cannot be said that deceased employees died in harness entitled the appellant to get compassionate appointment. Even the retiral dues of the Government Servant along with emoluments earned by the family members of the Shiksha Karmi who are now government servant cannot be said to be insufficient to fall the appellant within the ambit of sudden financial crisis or penury. The financial crisis or penury is basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government regarding grant of compassionate appointment. As such, the action of the respondents authorities in canceling the appointment or not issuing appointment order to the appellant on compassionate ground is justified on the count that mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi who is not government servant still he is in gainful employment and it cannot be held that appellant is having sudden financial or pecuniary crisis, as such, the order of cancellation of appointment is legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity. 5 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 10 Thus, applying same analogy to the facts of the present case wherein the brother of appellant is already in government service, as per policy of compassionate appointment of the State Government the appellant cannot be given compassionate appointment. The policy of the State Government has been affirmed by learned Single Judge. Thus, the appellant was not entitled for compassionate appointment and his application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the department which has rightly been affirmed by learned Single Judge in writ petition. 11 Accordingly, the writ appeals fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder