Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23908
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Manoj Kumar Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 3135 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nikhil Wadhwani, Awadh Tripathi
For the Respondents: Khulesh Sahu
Compassionate appointment must be granted strictly according to the prevailing policy. If the policy bars appointment when another family member is in government service, the court cannot order a dependency inquiry, as it would amount to impermissibly rewriting the policy terms.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Family member in government service - Where the applicable policy stipulates that no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment if one member of the family is already in government service, such a condition must be strictly adhered to regardless of the financial dependency of the applicant. (Para 5, 6)
(B) Judicial Review - Article 226 - Scope of Inquiry - The Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct an inquiry into the financial support or dependency of the applicant if the policy explicitly bars appointment due to another family member being in government service, as doing so would amount to impermissibly rewording or revising the terms of the policy. (Para 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment despite his elder brother being in government service, and whether the court can order an inquiry into financial dependency to bypass policy restrictions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for compassionate appointment and the respondent's rejection based on a family member already being in government service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. strict adherence to policy eligibility criteria regarding family members in government service. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. limitation of judicial power under article 226 to not rewrite policy by ordering dependency inquiries. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit based on established policy and legal precedents. (Para 9) |
Order on Board
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
“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 24.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by the office of respondent no. 4.
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.”
2. Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner, namely, Balram Sahu was a Assistant Mechanic working under respondent No. 5, who died in harness on 22.04.2021. He would contend that an application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that elder brother of the petitioner is already in Government service. He would submit that the petitioner preferred WPS No. 4269 of 2021 and vide order dated 18.08.2021 a direction was issued to the concerned authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner after conducting an enquiry with regard to dependency part. He would contend that the petitioner is residing separately along with his mother & sister and elder brother who is Government servant, never supported the petitioner financially, but again the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. He would pray to set-aside the order dated 24.03.2022.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer 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 Mukharjee 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.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
5. Perusal of order dated 24.03.2022(Annexure P/1) would show that elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Mukesh Kuamr Sahu is a government employee and Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Muniya Mukharjee (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. Dep
