Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24649
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Mayavati Banjare – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WA No. 734 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.M. Shriwas
For the Respondents: Saumya Rai
If a compassionate appointment policy expressly prohibits eligibility when another family member is in government service, the court cannot direct an inquiry into financial dependency or rewrite the policy to grant appointment.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Policy Prohibition - Where the applicable policy expressly prohibits the grant of compassionate appointment if any member of the deceased government servant's family is already in government service, the court cannot direct an inquiry into the financial condition or dependency of other family members. (Para 11, 12)
(B) Judicial Review - Policy Modification - The writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot rewrite, rephrase, or modify the terms of a government policy to grant relief that is expressly prohibited by the policy's stipulations. (Para 11, 12)
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to compassionate appointment despite her elder brother being in government service, in light of Clause 6A of the applicable policy.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and facts regarding the claim for compassionate appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding financial hardship versus strict adherence to policy prohibitions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. legal position that courts cannot modify express policy prohibitions on compassionate appointment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. application of clause 6a to the facts leading to the dismissal of the appeal. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr.P.M.Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The present writ appeal has been filed with a delay of 01 day, but no application for condonation of delay has been filed.
3. Considering the fact that delay is of only 01 day, we condone the delay.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ appeal is heard finally.
5. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.7116/2021 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
6. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the writ petitioner’s father namely Ram Ratan Banjare, who was working on the post of Secretary, Panchayat Turasemariya under respondent department died in harness on 4.5.2021. Writ Petitioner, who is the younger married daughter of deceased government servant, moved application for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 31.8.2021 on the ground that elder brother of petitioner is in government service, against which, the writ petitioner has filed writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's father, namely Ram Ratan Banjare, was working on the post of Secretary, Panchayat Turasemariya under the respondent department and died in harness on 04.05.2021. The appellant, being the younger married daughter of the deceased government servant, submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment with a view to securing financial assistance for the family after the death of her father. The application of the appellant was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 31.08.2021, solely on the ground that the appellant's elder brother is in government service. It is submitted that such rejection is wholly mechanical and contrary to the object of compassionate appointment. The mere fact that the appellant's elder brother is employed in government service cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for rejection of the appellant's claim. The competent authority was required to consider the overall financial condition of the deceased employee's family, the actual dependency of the family members, the income of the employed brother and other relevant circumstances. Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a government servant who dies in harness. The appellant's claim ought therefore to have been considered in the light of the object and purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme, rather than being rejected solely on the basis of the employment of another family member.
8. It is further submitted that the fact that the appellant is a married daughter cannot, by itself, disentitle her from consideration for compassionate appointment, particularly where she is otherwise an eligible dependent under the applicable rules. The respondents were required to examine her eligibility and dependency in accordance with the governing policy. The impugned order dated 31.08.2021 is a non-speaking order and does not disclose any consideration of the financial condition of the family, the appellant's dependency, or the other relevant circumstances. The order proceeds solely on the ground that the appellant'
