1 / 6 2026:CGHC:6151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 870 of 2026 Rishabh Kumar Netam S/o Late Shri Komal Singh Netam Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Ranitari, P.S. And Post- Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Mantralaya, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector District- Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Joint Director Department Of School Education, Division Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The District Education Officer District- Balod, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Block Education Officer Block- Dondilohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Ms. Deeksha Gauraha, Govt. Advocate Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.02.10 12:24:11 +0530 2 / 6 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 04/02/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this case is heard finally. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging order/communication dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) whereby application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by respondent No.5/District Education Officer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner Late Shri Komal Singh Netam while working on the post of Headmaster died in harness on 12.05.2021. After death of his father, petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment supported with affidavits/consent deed of other eligible family members. However, vide impugned order, his application for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that during scrutiny of the application and affidavits/consent deed filed by the family members of petitioner, it was found that mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Nisha Netam is already working as Headmistress in the Govt. Primary School, Ranitarai (Road). He contended that Smt. Nisha Netam who is stated to be family member of petitioner is the stepmother and not the real mother and she is not taking care of petitioner as she is residing separately. Therefore in the facts of case, Smt. Nisha Netam cannot be said to be family member of petitioner when she is residing separately from the petitioner and petitioner does not receive any financial support or aid from her brother. However, the respondent authority without considering the claim of the petitioner in a proper manner has rejected the application on 3 / 6 hyper-technical ground. Therefore, impugned order rejecting claim of the petitioner be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that name of Smt. Nisha Netam is recorded as nominee in the service record of deceased employee wherein her relationship with deceased employee is also shown as wife. Since mother of the petitioner is already in government employment, in terms of the policy of compassionate appointment, candidature of the petitioner has been rejected and in the absence of any challenge to the policy, decision of the respondent cannot be said to be bad. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is son of the deceased employee who was working as Headmaster and died in harness on 12.05.2021. Perusal of the impugned order would show that claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected in view of provision under Clause 6 (A) of the Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment – 2013 (for short “Consolidated Instructions of 2013”), which is reproduced as under: “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 – 4 / 6 Dependent mother, dependent father, 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) – dependent father, mother, brother and sister.” 7. Perusal of the above provision clearly stipulates that compassionate appointment shall not be granted to the member of the family as categorized therein if any other member of the family is already in government employment. It clearly provides that Family Member means Family Member of deceased employee. From the pleading made in the writ petition, it is clear that mother (step) of the petitioner is already in government employment and working on the post of Headmistress in School Education Department. 8. The issue as to whether this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is empowered to direct the State Government to hold an enquiry qua the dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant, who is already in Govt. service, to the dependent of the deceased government servant claiming compassionate appointment is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by this Court. 9. Application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the guidelines framed by the State Govt. Courts would not rewrite the terms of the guidelines as it is in exclusive domain of State Government. 10. In the case of State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Umesh 5 / 6 Thakur Full Bench of this Court while answering reference to the question “when any dependent family member of deceased employee is already in Government service, in that circumstances whether any other member of the family would be deprived for employment on compassionate ground, without consideration of dependency of family on such Government employee” , taking note of the decisions rendered by Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.334/2021 decided on 10.12.2021, State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey and Anr. (Writ Appeal No.91 of 2022, decided on 23.02.2022, reference answered by another Division Bench in case of Purendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (WPS No.6689 of 2018 decided on 12.01.2022) and in the light of principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh and Anr Vs. Prakash Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285 and Central Bank of India Vs. Nitin (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873), held 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 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 6 / 6 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.” 11.For the foregoing discussions, in view of the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above and taking note of the relevant policy i.e. Compassionate Appointment Instructions-2013, amended in the year 2016, which clearly provides that compassionate appointment shall not be granted to the member of the family as categorized therein if any other member of the family is already in government employment, I do not find any error in rejecting the application filed by petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 12. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen