1 2026:CGHC:16326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1928 of 2022 1 - Umeshwar Prasad Choudhary S/o Late Shri Samaliya Ram Choudhary Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Gopalpur Post Bhobha Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Chhuriya District Rajnadgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 9.4.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by the office of respondent no. 3. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment with immediate effect. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given. 10.6 An affidavit in support of the petition is filed herewith.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that this is the second round of litigation filed before this Court. Pursuant to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP(S) No. 1952 of 2021 dated 28.6.2021, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment but the said application was rejected on the ground that as per the circular of the State Government dated 29.8.2016, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 16.9.2020 issued by the office of respondent No.3 (Annexure-P/1). That representation was rejected because the eldest brother of the petitioner is employed by the Government of Chhattisgarh and according to the Circular/ notification issued by 3 the General Administration Department dated 29.8.2016, the petitioner was deemed ineligible for compassionate appointment. Hence, this petition. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner, namely, Samaliya Ram Choudhary who was working on the post of Panchayat Secretary died in harness on 29.11.2017. She further submits that although the petitioner's eldest brother and his wife are government employees, they have resided separately for years and have extended no financial assistance to the petitioner. She contends that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the application of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by respondent No.3 /The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Rajnandgaon vide its letter dated 16.9.2020 (Annexure P/7). She further contends that the respondent authorities ought to have considered the case of petitioner as he receives no financial support from his brother or sister-in-law. Consequently, she prays that a direction may be issued to respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 4) 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. He has relied on the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of 4 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. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 6) 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 5 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." 7) In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that her siblings do not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy. 6 8) Admittedly, the petitioner's siblings are 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. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi