1 2026:CGHC:15636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4698 of 2022 1 - Smt. Gurbari Suryavanshi Wd/o Late Mulchand Satnami, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Bhalumar, Tahsil Gharghoda, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramila Satnami D/o Late Mulchand Satnami, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bhalumar, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1- State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Deparment Of Rural Industries, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2- Director (Resham) Gramodyog Sanchanalay (Resham Prabhag), Indrawati Bhawan, Block-1, Fourth Floor, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3- Joint Director (Silk) Research Development And Training, Koni-Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None in two rounds. For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the application of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of 15 days and further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner no.2 for grant of compassionate appointment, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner No.1, Smt. Gurbari, is the wife of the deceased employee, namely Mulchand Satnami. The petitioner No.2 is the divorced daughter of the deceased employee and she is residing with petitioner No.1. The deceased employee was working under the respondent department on the post of Fieldman (Pradarshak) and was posted in the office of Respondent No.2. 3. The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 died in harness on 27.12.2018, leaving behind his wife and divorced daughter (petitioner No.2). The son of the deceased employee is living separately with his family at Bengaluru and was not dependent upon the deceased. Another daughter of the deceased is married and living with her matrimonial family. 4. Initially, petitioner No.1 submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. However, the said application was returned by the respondents on the ground of incompleteness, with a direction to submit a fresh application along with all necessary documents. Copies of letters dated 15.03.2019 and 24.05.2019 are filed 3 herewith as Annexure P/1. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 submitted an application for compassionate appointment to consider the name of petitioner No.2, as petitioner No.1 had become overage and petitioner No.2, being a divorced daughter, is residing with and dependent upon her. 5. Petitioner No.1 has given her consent in favour of petitioner No.2 for being considered for compassionate appointment. Petitioner No.2 is fully eligible and qualified for such appointment and possesses the requisite educational qualifications. 6. The petitioners have no independent source of income and are living separately, facing severe financial hardship for their survival. 7. Learned State counsel would submit that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member of the deceased government servant is already employed in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. The State counsel further relies on the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai, 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. 8. I have heard learned State counsel and perused the documents. 9. 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. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below: 4 "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 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." 10. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate 5 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 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 has already been reproduced hereinabove. 11.In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that his brothers are living separately and are not providing any financial assistance to him and his widowed mother cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy. 12. Admittedly, sone of petitioner No.1. namely Rameshwar Suryawanshi, is already in government service, which is not disputed by the petitioners. 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. 13.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. 14.Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim