1 CGHC010215822018 2026:CGHC:34766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5105 of 2018 Ku. Indumati Tekam Late Shri Manharan Singh Tekam Aged About 32 Years R/o Post - Godh Khami, Tahsil And Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1– State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur , Distt- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2- Secretary, General Administration Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3- Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 4- Deputy Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 5- Tehsildar, Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/ quash the impugned order dated 02.01.2018 issued by the Deputy Collector, Mungeli through Collector, Mungeli, (C.G.). Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/ quash the impugned order cum circular dated 14.06.2013 and 13.10.2017 issued by General Administrative Department, State of Chhattisgarh and thereby to direct add unmarried sister in the clause whereby issuing fresh circular 10.3) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for Compassionate appointment on the post of Peon under unmarried sister or under unmarried daughter. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, namely Manharan Singh, who was working on the post of Peon at Tahsil Office, Lormi, District Mungeli, died in harness on 10.10.2010. She would further submit that the son of the deceased, namely, Ram Singh Tekam, brother of the petitioner herein, applied for grant of compassionate appointment and he was offered appointment on 21.02.2011 to the post of Peon. She would further submit that, unfortunately, the brother of the petitioner, namely, Ram Singh, also died on 23.08.2017, thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. She would contend that the application for grant of compassionate appointment preferred by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 02.01.2018 on the ground that, according to the policy for grant of compassionate appointment dated 14.06.2013, the sister of the dependent of the deceased married Government servant is not entitled to compassionate appointment. She would also contend that a dependency certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Lormi, and the said document was placed before respondent No. 4 along with the application form, therefore, the authority concerned should have 3 considered the claim of the petitioner. She would further submit that there is no one to provide financial assistance to the family. She would fairly submit that two earning members have died within a period of seven years, and this is another reason to prefer this writ petition; thus, she would pray to allow the petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and would submit that according to the policy dated 14.06.2013, Widow/Widower of the retired government servant; Son/Adopted son; Unmarried daughter/Unmarried adopted daughter; Dependent widowed daughter/Dependent widowed adopted daughter; and Dependent divorced daughter/Dependent divorced adopted daughter, would be eligible to claim compassionate appointment on account of the death of a Government employee. He would contend that if a Government servant dies during his service tenure, his or her siblings may claim compassionate appointment after getting the consent of the parents. He would further contend that as the Government servant, Ram Singh was married, the sister of the petitioner has no right to claim compassionate appointment; thus, the authority has rightly rejected the application for grant of compassionate appointment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Clauses 5 and 6 of the policy for compassionate appointment dated 14.06.2013 describe dependency for claiming compassionate appointment and are reproduced as under:- “5. अक उदर :- दग सक स क क आ रर क !क सद! " # स कस एक सद! क% & द ' कसर अ(') (क) क अ!कर कर र 4 % र ( ) क% ए उसक *&) इस अ, # आग (ग), (घ) ए (ड.) क अक क/ &र क 0 ग - (क) स 12 सक स क क ध / धर ( ) /द2क , (ग) अ / अ द2क (घ) आ ध / आ द2क ध ए, (ड.) आ कद / आ कद द2क । 6. अ सक स क क ध % र अक :- ऐस सक स क क 16 % र, 0% अ 7 (अ( धर 7 और उसक क%ई / : 7) % ऐस दग सक स क क ( / क अस र) ;ई / अ ब, क% अक क %ग।" 6. In the present case, the Government servant - Ram Singh was a married person who died on 23.08.2017, and his sister/petitioner herein approached the authorities concerned claiming compassionate appointment. 7. From perusal of the Clause-5 & 6, of the policy dated 14.06.2013, the petitioner being sister of the deceased Government Employee is not eligible for grant of compassionate appointment, thus, her application was rightly rejected by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 02.01.2018. 8. It is a settled principle of law that this Court cannot reverse or rewrite the policy to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment. 9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order(s) passed by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey Nadim JUDGE