CGHC010244162020 2026:CGHC:37350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4489 of 2020 Ajay Kumar Bunkar, S/o Late Shri Rambilas Ram, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, School Education Depart- ment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattis- garh., 2 - Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Block - C 03, Second And Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Director, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 4 - Kaushal Kumar Bunkar S/o Late Rambilas Ram, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Bishunpur, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shivangi Agrawal, advocate ap- pears on behalf of Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 20.08.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging Annexure P/1 dated 26.08.2019, whereby the petitioner's application for com- passionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his two brothers are already in Government service and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment under the prevailing policy. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.08.21 11:20:20 +0530 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's fa- ther, who was serving as a peon in the Rajmohini Devi Kanya Postgraduate College, Ambikapur, died in harness on 10.06.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassion- ate grounds, but the petitioner's application for compassionate ap- pointment has been rejected solely on the ground that his two brothers, namely Anand Kumar Bunkar and Ashish Kumar Bunkar, are already in Government service. He further submits that both the brothers are living separately and have also filed affidavits in support of the petitioner's claim, stating that they are not residing with or maintaining the petitioner and his mother. It is further sub- mitted that after the death of the petitioner's father, Late Shri Ram- bilas Ram, who was the sole breadwinner of the family, the peti- tioner and his mother have been facing serious financial hardship. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected mechanically without examining the actual financial condition and dependency of the petitioner and his mother. Therefore, the peti- tioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his claim afresh in accordance with law after conducting due verification of the family's financial dependency. 3. Learned State counsel fairly submits that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Umesh Thakur in Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, decided on 21.06.2023, and that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the law laid down therein. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. The relevant observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Umesh Thakur in Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, decided on 21.06.2023, are 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 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 Govern- ment service then other members of the family of the deceased Government servant would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, then the writ court in exer- cise 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 mem- bers of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by another member of the family for compas- sionate appointment, as it would amount to rewording / revising the terms of the applicable policy for compas- sionate 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 ser- vice and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compas- sionate 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. 16. In conclusion, we hold that Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) was rightly decided by Division Bench of this Court laying down the correct law. The reference is answered accordingly. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, decided on 21.06.2023, since two of the family members of the deceased Government servant are already in Government service and the applicable policy bars considera- tion of another dependent for compassionate appointment, the pe- titioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the respondents have rightly rejected the petitioner's claim, and no interference with the impugned order is called for. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti