1 CGHC010270792019 2026:CGHC:41797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6176 of 2019 • Smt. Anjum Khan D/o Hasim Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o Laxmipur, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Managing Director Through Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Head Office At Indira Gandhi Commercial Campus, Pandri Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager Through Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer For respondents No. 2 and 3 Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 2 25/09/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 6-2-2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondents, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the count that the son of the deceased Haksim Khan is already in Government service. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the father of the petitioner namely late Hasim Khan was appointed and posted as Driver in Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Bank as Grade III under the respondents No.2 and 3 and during the service tenure he died in harness on 21-3- 2017 after completion of 33 years of service and a copy of death certificate is also attached along with the petition as Annexure P/2. The petitioner being daughter of the deceased employee has made a representation for grant of compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities on 17-7-2017 which has been rejected by the respondents authority vide order dated 6-2-2026 which has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no rider to get compassionate appointment to the daughter though one of the family members of the deceased is in Government service. Thus, he would pray for allowing the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 opposing the aforesaid submissions would submit that the Bank has adopted the policy of the State Government in its letter and spirit and according to the policy issued by the State Government, if one of the family members of the deceased is in Government service, another family member of the deceased is not 3 entitled to get compassionate appointment and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. To substantiate their submissions, they have referred to the order passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and two others vs. Umesh Thakur (Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022) decided on 21-6-2023. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The issue that whether, if one of the family members of the deceased Government employee is in Government service, another family member of the deceased is entitled to get compassionate appointment or not has come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court wherein the Hon'ble Full Bench has held in para 15 and 16 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 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 aclaim 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 4 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." 7. Considering all the facts, material on record and in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Umesh Thakur,(supra), I am of the view that there is no perversity or illegality in passing the impugned order dated 6-2-2018 (Annexure P/1) warranting any interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendrta Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2026.09.26 11:18:39 +0530