1 CGHC010145872022 2026:CGHC:37309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3135 of 2022  Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Late Balram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post Godhna, Tahsil Nawagarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resource Department Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Superintending Engineer, Hasdeo Project Division, Korba., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. The Chief Engineer Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Project, Bilaspur., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. The Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Nahar Water Managing Division Janjgir., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.21 13:52:39 +0530 2 (Annexure P-1) issued by the office of respondent no. 4. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment with immediate effect. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner, namely, Balram Sahu was a Assistant Mechanic working under respondent No. 5, who died in harness on 22.04.2021. He would contend that an application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that elder brother of the petitioner is already in Government service. He would submit that the petitioner preferred WPS No. 4269 of 2021 and vide order dated 18.08.2021 a direction was issued to the concerned authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner after conducting an enquiry with regard to dependency part. He would contend that the petitioner is residing separately along with his mother & sister and elder brother who is Government servant, never supported the petitioner financially, but again the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. He would pray to set-aside the order dated 24.03.2022. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer would submit that according to Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, if any family member of the deceased government servant is already in Government service, other dependents would not be entitled for compassionate 3 appointment. The State counsel further relies on the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Mukharjee, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically held that the policy does not envisage any inquiry into the financial condition of other family members, and eligibility is to be strictly decided as per the terms of the policy. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Perusal of order dated 24.03.2022(Annexure P/1) would show that elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Mukesh Kuamr Sahu is a government employee and Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Muniya Mukharjee (supra) 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 4 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 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." 6. In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that elder brother of the petitioner does not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy. 7. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court has passed judgment dated 21-6-2023 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur in Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, and has observed in paragraph no. 15 which read as under:- “15.In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra),Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) and the reference answered by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha (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 case (supra) and Nitin's case (supra), compassionate appointment has to be granted in accordance with the policy 5 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 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 8. It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the policy in force. 9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant