Compassionate appointment is governed by the prevailing policy; if a family member of the deceased is already in government service, other members are ineligible, and the court cannot relax this rule based on equitable considerations or lack of financial support.

CGHC010306342026

NAFR

Digitally signed by SHOAIB SHOAIBANWAR ANWAR Date: 2026.08.10 17:31:53 +0530

(Cause title taken from CIS)

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by respondent No.2, whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that her brother, Late Shri Yogendra Singh Kurre, was serving as Assistant Grade- III at Government Higher Secondary School, Kudmura, Block Kartala, District Korba, under the School Education Department and died in harness on 23.09.2022. According to the petitioner after the death of her brother, the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the petitioner, she and her mother were dependent upon the income of the deceased employee.

3. It is further submitted that the sister in law of the petitioner i.e. the wife of the deceased employee, namely Smt. Bhupeshwari Kurre, is already employed as Headmaster in the Education Department and is residing separately. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Government- employed family member does not maintain or financially support the petitioner and her elderly mother. It is further submitted that on 09.02.2024, the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased employee executed a consent affidavit/NOC before the Notary Public, expressing their consent and having no objection to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

4. The petitioner’s application, however, came to be rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 24.06.2024 on the ground that under the applicable policy governing compassionate appointment, where a member of the family of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service, another member of the family is not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority has rejected the claim mechanically by merely noticing that the wife of the deceased employee is in Government service, without conducting any factual enquiry as to whether she is actually maintaining or financially supporting the petitioner and her mother. It is contended that the wife of the deceased employee is residing separately and, therefore, her Government employment by itself could not have been treated as an absolute bar.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the sister in law of the petitioner (wife of the deceased employee) is in government service at the time of death of the brother of the petitioner, therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the authorities rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached with the petition.

8. From perusal of the documents and the contentions raised by the petitioner, it appears that the application of the petitioner has already been rejected by considering the condition enumerated in the policy which was existing at the relevant point of time.

9. The contention of the petitioner that her Sister in law is residing separately and is not extending financial assistance to the family also does not persuade this Court to interfere. The competent authority has considered the petitioner's claim in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy prevailing on the date of consideration and has found the petitioner ineligible on account of the fact that one member of the deceased employee's family was already in Government service. Once the policy prescribes such a disqualification, the authority was bound to act in terms thereof, and this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct