NAFR

Order on Board

09.04.2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 11-02- 2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No3.

10.2 That, this Hoin'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the to grant respondent authorities compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the respondent department in lieu of his brother, who died on 31-10-2021 during the service period.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.”

2. The facts in brief are that brother of the petitioner, namely, Shiv Kumar Bariha was Constable working in the 5th Battalion, CAF, Jagdalpur, who died in harness on 31.10.2021. The petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment along with relevant documents and same has been rejected vide order dated 11.02.2022 by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that Kalapram Bariha, brother of the petitioner, is already in Government service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Kalapram Bariha, brother of the petitioner does not support petitioner financially. He would contend that the petitioner is residing along with mother and no enquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities before passing the order Annexure P/1 dated 11.02.2022.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini would submit that according to Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, if any family member of the deceased government servant is already in Government service, other dependents would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. The State counsel further relies on the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of 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 on record.

6. Perusal of order dated 11.02.2022(Annexure P/1) would show that brother of the petitioner is a government employee and Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Muniya Bai (supra) 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 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 servan