Compassionate appointment is governed strictly by the prevailing policy; if a family member is already in government service, other dependents are ineligible, and courts cannot mandate an inquiry into financial dependency if the policy does not provide for it.

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal;

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and quash/set-aside the (Annexure P/1) letter/order dated 06.07.2021 issued/passed by the respondent no.3;

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction commanding the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner; and

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely, Puran Lal Kowachi, was a Class III employee (NMA) posted at the Community Health Centre, Mohla, District Rajnandgaon. He died in harness on 20.2.2021, leaving behind his wife and three sons. In November 2021, the petitioner’s mother also died. Chyavan Kumar, the brother of the petitioner, is in government service and has been residing separately with his family for a long time. He has never provided any financial support to the family.

3. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in April 2021. A reminder letter was sent by the petitioner on 30.4.2021. He was directed, vide letter dated 18.6.2021, to furnish information as to whether any of his family members was employed in government service. The petitioner duly furnished the information on 26.6.2021, stating that his brother, Chyavan Kumar, was in government service.

4. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 6.7.2021 on the ground that one of the family members, i.e. the petitioner’s brother, was in government service and, in terms of Clause 6A of the Policy for Compassionate Appointment, the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that respondent No.3 rejected the application submitted by the petitioner without conducting any enquiry into the petitioner’s financial status. He would contend that the petitioner’s brother, Chyavan Kumar, resides separately with his family and has never provided any financial assistance to the dependent family. He would further contend that, in the matter of Nilesh Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others , passed in W.P. (S) No.3580 of 2021, it has been held that the policy for compassionate appointment must be read down and can be applied only after an enquiry is conducted by the respondents to ascertain the petitioner’s dependency status and the extent of support, if any, being provided to the petitioner by his brothers. He would, therefore, pray for quashing of the order dated 6.7.2021 (Annexure-P/1).

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that, as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 14.6.2013 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member of the deceased government servant is already employed in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. Learned State counsel further relies upon 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 enquiry into the financial condition of other family members and that eligibility is to be determined strictly in accordance with the terms of the policy.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file.

8. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, 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