1 2026:CGHC:16656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7781 of 2022 Jagriti Patel D/o Late Narayan Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 25, House No. 136, Near Gaura, Chaura, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Panchaayt, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2- Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that her sister, namely Reetu Patel, is working as a Teacher in Higher Secondary School, Gidhpuri, Janpad Panchayat Palari, District Baloda-Bazar. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in dire financial condition and is dependent upon the income of others for her survival. She would further submit that though the petitioner’s sister is employed in government service, but she is living separately and is not providing any financial assistance to the petitioner or her widowed mother, therefore, the case of the petitioner deserves consideration on humanitarian grounds. 3. On the other hand, 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on documents. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits 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 3 other family members, and eligibility is to be strictly decided as per the terms of the policy. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 7. 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: "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 4 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." 8. In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that her sister is living separately and is not providing any financial assistance to her and her widowed mother cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner’s sister, namely Reetu Patel, 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. 10. 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. 11. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim