Pranjal Kesharwani vs Secretary
2026 Latest Caselaw 1323 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Pranjal Kesharwani vs Secretary on 6 April, 2026

                                            1




                                                               2026:CGHC:15589
                                                                                NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                               WPS No. 4758 of 2022

1 - Pranjal Kesharwani S/o Shri Kamal Kishore Kesharwani, Aged About 27
Years R/o Ward No. 10, Ranisagar, Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
State Pin 496445                                                   ... Petitioner


                                         versus
1 - Secretary Department Of School Education, Raipur Bti Campus, Tv Tower
Rd Bti Ground, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pin 492007

2 - District Education Officer, Office Of District Education Officer, Behind
District Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh , Chhattisgarh State.
                                                            ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board 06.04.2026

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

"10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the case from the possession and custody of the respondents for its kind perusal.

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment ignoring the fact of his sister being a government employee.

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may set any other condition for offering compassionate appointment to the petitioner which will be binding on the petitioner."

3. Mr. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that mother of the petitioner, namely late Shakuntala

Kesharwani was Lecturer in the Government Girls Higher

Secondary School, Raigarh (C.G.) who died in harness on

26.01.2022. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate

appointment which has been rejected on the ground that one of the

family members of the deceased employee is already in government

service. He would submit that decision of respondent authorities is

illegal & bad in law.

4. Mr. Tripathi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would

oppose the submissions made by Mr. Nair. He would submit that

according to Clause 6A of the Policy for compassionate

appointment, if one of the family members of the deceased is

already in Government service, any other member of the family

would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. He would

further submit that the petitioner has not challenged the circular

issued by the General Administration Department, State of

Chhattisgarh, dated 29.08.2016 whereby clause 6A was inserted. As

per the subsequent circular dated 29.08.2016, if any member of the

deceased's family is already in Government service, no other family

member is eligible for compassionate appointment. He would argue

that in Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v.

Kevra Bai) and Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of

Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai), the Hon'ble Division Bench set aside

the direction for factual inquiry regarding the income, holding that

there is no such provision in the policy; thus, he prays for the

dismissal of the petition.

5. 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 dealing with Clause 6A of the policy for compassionate

appointment, has categorically held that 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 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. Admittedly, the mother of the petitioner, late Shakuntala

Kesharwani, died in harness on 26.01.2022. The application for

compassionate appointment was submitted on 09.03.2022 and was

rejected by respondent No.2/District Education Officer, Raigarh

(C.G.) on 12.04.2022 on the ground that one member of the family

is already in the Government service.

8. Clause 6A was inserted in the policy for compassionate appointment

vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged

the said circular in the present petition.

9. It is a well-settled principle of law that an application for

compassionate appointment must be decided strictly in accordance

with the prevailing policy.

10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find

any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order.

11. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

sd/-

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

Rekha