Chattisgarh High Court
Shrikant Pathak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
1
Digitally signed by
NADIM MOHLE
2026:CGHC:14231
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2402 of 2021
Shrikant Pathak S/o Late Ramnihora Pathak Aged About 30 Years R/o Nagar
Panchayat , Pandatarai District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Agriculture
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Managing Director Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, Beej Bhawan ,
G.E. Road, Telibanda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Additional Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Beej
Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibanda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/03/2026
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 2
"10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02/12/2020 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Additional Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Raipur, (C.G.).
10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority the candidature of petitioner to be considered in the relevant post in Agriculture Marketing Board as per the qualification possessed by the petitioner.
10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the Additional Director, State Agriculture Marketing Board, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's siblings are already employed in Government service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's father, late Shri Ramnihora Pathak, was serving as Sub-Inspector in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) and died in a tragic accident on 28.08.2020 while in service. He would further submit that after his demise, the petitioner, being eligible and qualified (B.E. in Electrical Engineering), applied for compassionate appointment, supported by affidavits executed by his mother Smt. Usha Pathak and 3 his brothers, namely Chandrakant Pathak and Suryakant Pathak, consenting to the grant of such appointment in favour of the petitioner. He would further submit that though the petitioner's brothers are in Government service, but they are living separately with their respective families, which is substantiated by separate ration cards, and the petitioner alone is maintaining his widowed mother. He argued that the respondent authority has failed to consider these crucial aspects and has mechanically rejected the petitioner's claim solely on the ground of employment of his siblings, without proper inquiry or application of mind; thus, the petition is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 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. The State counsel further relies on 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 inquiry into the financial condition of other family members, and eligibility is to be strictly decided as per the terms of the policy.
4
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file.
6. 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 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 envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee 5 who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment."
7. 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 already in government service, no other member of the family is eligible for 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 has already been reproduced hereinabove.
8. In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that his brothers are living separately and are not providing any financial assistance to him and his widowed mother cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner's brothers, namely Chandrakant Pathak and 6 Suryakant Pathak, are already in government service, which is not disputed by the petitioner. Clause 6A in the compassionate appointment policy was inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said circular in the present petition.
10. It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the policy in force.
11. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.12.2020 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim