The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict construction of the policy for compassionate appointment and the inability to alter the policy through judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. The petitioner takes exception to the impugned order dated 14-9-2018 (Annexure P-1) by which his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected finding no merit on the ground that his brother namely, Dinesh Kumar Sinha is already on Government job (Indian Army).

2. Chandrabhushan Sinha - father of the petitioner herein, while working as Assistant Grade-II in the establishment of the Government died in harness on 3-12-2017 leading to filing of application claiming compassionate appointment on 2-1-2018 which has been rejected now by the competent authority vide Annexure P-1 in view of paragraph 2 of the circular dated 29-8-2016 (Annexure R-1) holding that brother of the petitioner is already in Government service, therefore, in the light of that circular, the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for the post on compassionate basis which has been sought to be challenged in this writ petition on the ground that enquiry ought to have been made as to whether his brother who is already in service is not supporting the petitioner, therefore, enquiry has to be made on dependency and then only the application ought to have been considered.

3. Return has been filed by the State/respondents stating inter-alia that the application for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected, as the petitioner’s brother is already in Indian Army and in view of the circular Annexure R-1, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.

4. No rejoinder has been filed opposing the averments made in return filed by the State/respondents.

5. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner’s brother is in Government service (Indian Army), but he is not supporting the petitioner’s family and the petitioner’s family have no source of income to earn their livelihood and therefore enquiry on dependency has to be made in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Sulochana Netam vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, W.P. (S) No. 2728/2017, decided on 23.11.2017 followed in the matter of Veermani Sonwani vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, W.P. (S) No. 2355/2020, decided on 23.6.2020 and as such, the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside, and enquiry on dependency be directed as directed by this Court in Sulochana Netam (supra).

6. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents, while vehemently opposing the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that clause 6(a) of the policy dated 14-6-2013 as amended on 29-8-2016 (Annexure R-1) bars consideration of claim for compassionate appointment if one of the family members of the deceased Government employee is already in Government service, this provision is complete in itself and no enquiry is necessary as no exception has been provided in clause 6(a) of the policy dated 14-6-2013 as amended vide Annexure R-1, otherwise, it would amount to rewriting the policy which is the exclusive domain of the executive. He would cite the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others, (2004) 7 SCC 112, Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. vs. U.T. Chandigarh and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 130, V. Sivamurthy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2008) 13 SCC 730, Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 209, Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow and Others vs. Prabhat Singh, (2012) 13 SCC 412, MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 and State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285 in support of his submission and would submit that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.