1 CGHC010251082026 2026:CGHC:36131-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 734 of 2026 Mayavati Banjare D/o Late Ram Ratan Banjare, Aged About 26 Years (Now Aged About-31 Years ), R/o Village -Bordehi, Post Office - Badnar, Tehsil- Nawagarh, District -Bemetara (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District -Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr.P.M.Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent- State : Mr.Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.08.2026 1. Heard Mr.P.M.Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.17 10:22:12 +0530 2 appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed with a delay of 01 day, but no application for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. Considering the fact that delay is of only 01 day, we condone the delay. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ appeal is heard finally. 5. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.7116/2021 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 6. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the writ petitioner’s father namely Ram Ratan Banjare, who was working on the post of Secretary, Panchayat Turasemariya under respondent department died in harness on 4.5.2021. Writ Petitioner, who is the younger married daughter of deceased government servant, moved application for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 31.8.2021 on the ground that elder brother of petitioner is in government service, against which, the writ petitioner has filed writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's 3 father, namely Ram Ratan Banjare, was working on the post of Secretary, Panchayat Turasemariya under the respondent department and died in harness on 04.05.2021. The appellant, being the younger married daughter of the deceased government servant, submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment with a view to securing financial assistance for the family after the death of her father. The application of the appellant was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 31.08.2021, solely on the ground that the appellant's elder brother is in government service. It is submitted that such rejection is wholly mechanical and contrary to the object of compassionate appointment. The mere fact that the appellant's elder brother is employed in government service cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for rejection of the appellant's claim. The competent authority was required to consider the overall financial condition of the deceased employee's family, the actual dependency of the family members, the income of the employed brother and other relevant circumstances. Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a government servant who dies in harness. The appellant's claim ought therefore to have been considered in the light of the object and purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme, rather than being rejected solely on the basis of the employment of another family member. 8. It is further submitted that the fact that the appellant is a married daughter cannot, by itself, disentitle her from consideration for 4 compassionate appointment, particularly where she is otherwise an eligible dependent under the applicable rules. The respondents were required to examine her eligibility and dependency in accordance with the governing policy. The impugned order dated 31.08.2021 is a non-speaking order and does not disclose any consideration of the financial condition of the family, the appellant's dependency, or the other relevant circumstances. The order proceeds solely on the ground that the appellant's elder brother is employed in government service and therefore suffers from non- application of mind. It is therefore submitted that the appellant was at least entitled to fair and objective consideration of her application in accordance with the applicable compassionate appointment policy. The respondents could not have rejected her claim mechanically without examining whether the family continued to suffer financial hardship. The impugned order, being arbitrary and having been passed without proper consideration of the relevant factors, is liable to be set aside. The respondents ought to be directed to reconsider the appellant's application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules/policy and after taking into consideration the actual financial circumstances of the deceased employee's family. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant would pray that the appeal be allowed, the order dated 31.08.2021 be set aside, and the respondents be directed to reconsider the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with law within a time- 5 bound period. 9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 10.Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present writ appeal. 11.The learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai, Writ Appeal No.33 of 2022, wherein Clause 6A of the applicable compassionate appointment policy was considered and it was held that where any member of the family of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service, no other member of the family would be eligible for compassionate appointment. It was further held that, where the policy itself contains such an express prohibition, the Court cannot direct an enquiry into the financial condition or dependency of the other family members, as such a direction would amount to re-writing or modifying the terms of the policy. 6 12.The aforesaid legal position has also been authoritatively settled by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur, Writ Appeal No.236 of 2022, decided on 21.06.2023. The Full Bench, after considering the earlier decisions of this Court and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has categorically held that where the applicable compassionate appointment policy provides that, if one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service, the other members of the family are not entitled to compassionate appointment, the writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct an enquiry regarding dependency or financial support being extended by such Government-employed family member. Such a course would amount to rephrasing or rewording the applicable policy, which is impermissible. 13.In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant's elder brother is already in Government service. Clause 6A of the applicable compassionate appointment policy, as inserted by circular dated 29.08.2016, specifically bars consideration of another family member for compassionate appointment in such circumstances. The appellant has also not questioned the validity of the aforesaid circular or Clause 6A in the present proceedings. 14.Consequently, the submission of the appellant that her elder brother is not supporting or maintaining the family cannot be 7 accepted as a ground for circumventing the express stipulation contained in Clause 6A of the policy. The claim for compassionate appointment has necessarily to be considered in accordance with the policy prevailing on the date of consideration, and this Court cannot direct an appointment contrary to the express terms thereof. 15.In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, we find that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based upon the applicable policy and the binding precedents of this Court. 16.Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu