Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 27290
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Sudhir Banjare – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 1435 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aniruddha Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Ajay Kumrani
Compassionate appointment must be granted strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy; courts cannot direct inquiries into financial dependency or reword policy terms if the policy bars appointment when another family member is already in government service.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Family member in government service - Where the applicable policy stipulates that if any family member of the deceased employee is already in government service, other dependents are ineligible, such condition must be strictly followed regardless of the actual financial support provided by said family member. (Para 5, 6)
(B) Judicial Review - Article 226 - Scope of inquiry - The Court cannot direct an inquiry into the financial dependency of the applicant when the policy explicitly bars appointment due to another family member's employment, as such a direction would amount to impermissible rewording or revising of the policy terms. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment despite his brothers being in government service, and whether the court can order an inquiry into financial dependency contrary to the express terms of the policy.
Order on Board
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 the order dt.17/12/2021 (Annexure-P/1) bearing No. 11318/Compass. Appointment/E-Cadre/2021 passed by the respondent No.3.
10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, in lieu of death of his father, within a stipulated time period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.
10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice”
2. Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner, namely, Laxman Singh Banjare was a Head Master working under respondent No. 3, who died in harness on 31.03.2021. 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 brothers of the petitioner are already in Government service. He would submit that the petitioner preferred WPS No. 4702 of 2021 and vide order dated 07.09.2021 a direction was issued to the concerned authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner after conducting an inquiry with regard to dependency part. He would contend that the petitioner is residing separately along with his mother and brothers who are Government servants, 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 17.12.2021.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumrani, 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 17.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) would show that brothers of the petitioner, namely, Jayprakash Banjare and Subhash Banjare are government employees 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. 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
