1 CGHC010232662026 2026:CGHC:36179-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 736 of 2026 Dileshwar Panigrahi S/o Late Ramanchal Panigrahi, Aged About 38 Years R/o R.E.S. Colony, Karitgaon, Bakawand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer, Block Bakawand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General 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. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.08.17 10:28:16 +0530 2 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2592/2022 (Dileshwar Panigrahi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case, as projected before the learned Single Judge, are that the appellant/writ petitioner’s mother, namely, Manvati Panigrahi, who was serving as an Assistant Teacher under the respondent Department, died in harness on 04.05.2021. The appellant/writ petitioner, being the elder son of the deceased Government servant, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 20.08.2021. However, respondent No.3, vide order dated 22.03.2022, rejected his claim on the ground that his younger brother, namely, Kamlesh Panigrahi, was already employed in Government service. 4. The case set up by the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that although his younger brother was working as a Ward Boy in the Health Department, he had been residing separately from the appellant/writ petitioner and the family for several years and was not extending any financial assistance to them. It was, therefore, contended that the mere employment of the younger brother in Government service could not, by itself, disentitle the appellant/writ petitioner from consideration for compassionate appointment, particularly when no financial 3 support was being provided by him. On the aforesaid premise, the appellant/writ petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 22.03.2022 and a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for compassionate appointment. 5. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the pleadings and material placed on record, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 01.05.2026, which has given rise to the present intra- Court appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the appellant’s younger brother, though employed in Government service, has been living separately and has not been extending any financial assistance to the family. It is contended that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased Government servant and, therefore, the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner ought not to have been rejected solely on the ground that his younger brother was in Government employment. It is further submitted that the competent authority ought to have examined the actual financial condition and dependency of the family before rejecting the claim. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and for appropriate relief in favour of the appellant. 4 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his submissions, has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 12.05.2026 passed by this Court in W.A. No.429/2026, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur v. Mukund Hela and others, and submits that the said decision supports the case of the appellant. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner has rightly been rejected, as his younger brother is already in Government service. He submits that the learned Single Judge, upon considering the relevant facts and applicable policy, has rightly dismissed the writ petition and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the present intra-Court appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 01.05.2026 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.2592/2022. 10. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the order dated 22.03.2022, whereby the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that his younger brother was already in Government service, and in directing the respondents to reconsider his claim despite such employment of the family member. 5 11. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “5) In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, 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. 6) 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 6 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 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 7 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. 7) In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that his brother does not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy. 8) Admittedly, the petitioner's brother is already in government service, which is not disputed by the petitioner. Clause 6A in the compassionate appointment policy was inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said circular in the present petition. 9) 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. 10) 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.” 8 12. We have considered the aforesaid submission as well as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. In our considered view, the judgment in Mukund Hela (supra) does not advance the case of the appellant, as the facts and the applicable policy provisions therein are distinguishable from those obtaining in the present case. The said judgment cannot be construed as laying down a principle that, irrespective of the express terms of the applicable compassionate appointment policy, a claim can be directed to be reconsidered merely on the ground that the family member already in Government service is residing separately or is not providing financial assistance. The applicability of a decision depends upon the facts and the governing statutory or policy framework of the case in which it is rendered; a judgment cannot be treated as a precedent binding in every factual situation divorced from its context. 13. In the present case, it is undisputed that the younger brother of the appellant/writ petitioner, namely, Kamlesh Panigrahi, is already in Government service. The learned Single Judge has noticed that Clause 6A of the applicable compassionate appointment policy specifically provides that where a member of the family of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service, another member of the family would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. The validity of the said provision has not been questioned by the appellant/writ petitioner. 9 14. The Full Bench of this Court in Umesh Thakur (supra) has categorically held that where the applicable compassionate appointment policy itself bars consideration of another family member when one of the family members is already in Government service, the writ Court cannot direct an enquiry into the question of dependency or financial assistance being provided by such Government servant, as doing so would amount to re- writing or re-framing the terms of the policy. 15. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the plea of the appellant/writ petitioner that his younger brother is residing separately and is not providing financial assistance to the family cannot furnish a ground for circumventing the express stipulation contained in Clause 6A of the applicable policy. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. 16. We have also considered the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in Mukund Hela (supra). The said decision, being rendered in the facts and circumstances and in the context of the applicable provisions obtaining therein, is of no assistance to the appellant in the present case. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides in the factual and legal context in which it is rendered and cannot be applied mechanically to every case irrespective of the governing policy and facts. 10 17. Consequently, we find no infirmity in the order dated 01.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2592/2022 warranting interference in the present intra-Court appeal. 18. The present writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu