1 2026:CGHC:9174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9654 of 2023 Ajay Joshi S/o Late Het Ram Joshi Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Jail Colony, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), Presently Resided At Village - Marda, Ward No. 03, Tahsil - Lawan, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Jail, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General of Jail (Prisons) Sector-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) 4 - Jail Superintendent, District Jail Ramanujganj District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 20.02.2026 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.07.2023 bearing Order No. 1522/32 (V.I.P.)/ तीन जेल/2023, Nava Raipur, passed by Respondent No.1, whereby his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.20 18:34:44 +0530 2 solely on the basis of the circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the General Administrative Department. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation for grant of compassionate appointment and quash the order dated 10-07-2023 issued by the Upper Secretary of the Jail Department of the Chhattisgarh State Government, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the decision of the State Government not granting benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, as it is of discriminatory and arbitrary nature. 10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner as also he is entitled for the compassionate appointment. 10.4 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that Late Shri Hetram Joshi, father of the petitioner, was initially appointed as Jail Guard in the Jail Department on 02.04.1996 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Chief Jail Guard in District Jail, 3 Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. While serving on the said post, he died in harness on 28.04.2022, leaving behind his widow and three sons. After his demise, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the applicable policy. However, the respondent authorities rejected his application on the basis of the circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, on the ground that since one of the family members is already in Government service, no other member is entitled to compassionate appointment. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in not considering the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is wholly arbitrary, unjust, and unreasonable, as the petitioner fulfills all the requisite conditions under the policy. It is contended that the petitioner’s brothers and sister are married, residing separately with their respective nuclear families at their places of service, and are not providing any financial assistance to the petitioner or his widowed mother. This vital aspect has not been examined by the authorities while rejecting the petitioner’s claim, despite all family members having given their consent in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned action is malafide and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner is the only son taking care of his aged mother and is facing acute financial hardship after the untimely death of his father. Compassionate appointment being a 4 benevolent provision intended to mitigate the sudden financial crisis of the bereaved family, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim on a hyper-technical ground that another family member is in service without considering the actual dependency and financial condition defeats the very object of the scheme. It is also submitted that such interpretation of the circular dated 23.02.2019 is arbitrary and contrary to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it denies equality of opportunity in public employment and the right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned action deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits and therefore deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner’s father was working at District Jail, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj and died in harness on 28.04.2022. After his death, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment along with necessary documents. Upon scrutiny of the application and relevant records, it was found that the petitioner’s elder brothers, namely Pradeep Kumar Joshi and Pramod Kumar Joshi, are already in government service. In view of this fact, the competent authority considered the circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, particularly Clause 6(A), which clearly provides that if any member of the family of the 5 deceased government servant is already in government service, no other member shall be eligible for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was found ineligible and his application was rightly rejected in accordance with the policy. 5. Learned counsel further submits that earlier circulars dated 14.06.2013 and 29.08.2016 also contain similar stipulations, and the revised instructions issued vide circular No. F 7-1/2019/1-3 dated 23.02.2019 reiterate the same position. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim is thus strictly in consonance with the governing policy. It is also contended that the issue is no longer res integra. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 33/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Muniya Bai) decided on 18.02.2022 and Writ Appeal No. 91/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Kevra Bai) decided on 23.02.2022, wherein it has been held that if any member of the family, as defined under the scheme, is already in Government service, other members are disentitled to compassionate appointment and no factual inquiry beyond the scheme is warranted. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Division Bench, the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, it is submitted that since the petitioner’s brothers are already in government service, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment under the prevailing policy, and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with the writ petition. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father, Late Hetram Joshi, was serving as Chief Jail Guard at District Jail, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj and died in harness on 28.04.2022. Upon his demise, the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The competent authority, after examining the application and the documents submitted therewith, found that two sons of the deceased employee, namely Pradeep Kumar Joshi and Pramod Kumar Joshi, are already in Government service. In view of Clause 6(A) of the circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which categorically provides that if any member of the family of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service, no other member shall be eligible for compassionate appointment, the petitioner’s claim was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.07.2023. 8. The principal contention raised by the petitioner is that his brothers, though in Government service, are residing separately with their respective families and are not providing financial assistance to him or to his widowed mother, and therefore, an enquiry ought to have been conducted regarding actual dependency and financial hardship. However, the scheme governing compassionate appointment does not provide for such 7 an enquiry once it is found that a family member, as defined under the policy, is already in Government service. The ineligibility operates by virtue of the express bar contained in Clause 6(A) of the policy. 9. Moreover, the issue is no longer res integra. The Full Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.06.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, has categorically held that where the applicable policy prohibits consideration of any other dependent once a member of the family is already in Government service, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct holding of an enquiry regarding dependency or financial support, as the same would amount to rewriting or rephrasing the terms of the scheme. In the present case, since admittedly the petitioner’s brothers are in Government employment, the bar contained in the policy squarely applies. Therefore, the competent authority has strictly adhered to the governing circular dated 23.02.2019 while rejecting the petitioner’s claim. The relevant portion of the said order reads 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 Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua 8 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. 10. 10. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, it is seen that the petitioner’s father, Late Hetram Joshi, was serving as Chief Jail Guard at District Jail, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj and died in harness on 28.04.2022, leaving behind his widow and three sons. After his demise, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment along with all requisite documents, including educational certificates and affidavits. On scrutiny of the application, it was revealed that two elder sons of the deceased, namely Pradeep Kumar Joshi and Pramod Kumar Joshi, are already in Government employment, working as Assistant Teacher and Sweeper in Government service, respectively. 11. In view of this undisputed fact, Clause 6(A) of the circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, clearly bars the consideration of any other dependent for compassionate appointment where a member of the family is already in Government service. The petitioner’s 9 claim, therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of the bar prescribed by the policy. While the petitioner contends that his brothers reside separately with their respective nuclear families and do not provide financial support to him or his widowed mother, the scheme governing compassionate appointment does not provide for such an enquiry once a family member is already in Government service. Any attempt to direct such enquiry would amount to rephrasing the terms of the policy, which the courts have consistently held to be impermissible. 12. Accordingly, the competent authority has strictly adhered to the governing circular dated 23.02.2019 while rejecting the petitioner’s claim. The impugned order dated 10.07.2023, therefore, being in full conformity with the State Government’s policy and consistent with binding judicial precedents including the Full Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.236 of 2022, does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity that would warrant interference by this Court. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment, and the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh