1 2026:CGHC:15642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4768 of 2022 1 - Chaitanya Chaturvedi S/o Late Shrikhemlal Chaturvedi, Aged About 21 Years R/o Premsagar Village Panchayat Sipkonaha Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Project Executing Unit Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, District Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo Samant, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.04.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the record for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an order/direction appropriate for compassionate appointment to the petitioner to the respondent authorities. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order impugned dated 04.12.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure P-1). 2 10.4 The petitioner named above most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble court to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief, which may suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 10.6 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 3. The facts in brief are that father of the petitioner, namely late Shrikhemlal Chaturvedi was working on the post of Sub-Engineer under the respondent authorities, who died in harness on 25.09.2015. At the time of death, the petitioner was a minor. Therefore, after attaining majority, he moved an application on 14.09.2020. The respondent No.3 has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that mother of the petitioner is already in Government service and according to Clause 6A of the Policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not entitled. 4. Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner died on 25.09.2015, whereas, Clause 6A was inserted in the policy for compassionate appointment on 29.08.2016 and therefore, respondent No.3 committed an error of law while applying amended provision retrospectively. He would submit that decision of respondent authorities is illegal & bad in law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Samant, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Verma. He would submit that the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage. It is also contended that mother of the petitioner is already in Government service, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. He would further submit that according to Clause 6A of the Policy for compassionate appointment, if one of the family members of the deceased is 3 already in Government service, any other member of the family would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. He would contend that the petitioner has not challenged the circular issued by the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, dated 29.08.2016 whereby clause 6A was inserted. As per the subsequent circular dated 29.08.2016, if any member of the deceased’s family is already in Government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. He would argue that in Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Kevra Bai) and Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai), the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the direction for factual inquiry regarding the income, holding that there is no such provision in the policy; thus, he prays for the dismissal of the petition. 6. 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 dealing with Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, has categorically held that 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, 4 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." 8. Clause 6A was inserted in the policy for compassionate appointment vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the said circular in the present petition. 9. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, late Shrikhemlal Chaturvedi, died in harness on 25.09.2015 and at that time, mother of the petitioner was in Government service. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was a minor at that time and after attaining majority, he moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 14.09.2020. Clause 6A was inserted in the Policy for compassionate Appointment on 29.08.2016 but at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate1, held at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under : 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 5 "7.Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee. 8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh2, it has been held at paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under : "7. In our view there is more than one impediment in the way of the respondent. 8. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same. 9. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant clause of the new policy which reads as under: 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 6 "The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the date of issue of instructions. The cases, where compassionate employment has not been given due to discontinuance of the earlier policy since 4/2002, shall also be considered and requisite relief, in lieu compassionate employment, shall be granted as per above policy instructions." 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that an application for compassionate appointment must be decided strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha