[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Manju Lata Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:15840
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1625 of 2021
Manju Lata Singh D/o Late Shri Bankeshwar Ram Aged About 27
Years R/o New Bus Stand Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur, Tahsil-
Ambikapur. District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of Agriculture
Department, Mantralaya Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Of Agriculture Department Mantralaya Capital Complex
Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Joint Director Agricultural Department Ambikapur District- Surguja,
Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
4. Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer Ambikapur District- Surguja,
Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Ms. Sanskriti Pawar, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate
For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
7.4.2026
1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of petitioner,
namely, Bankeshwar Ram who was working on the post of
Assistant Grade-II died in harness on 12.2.2017. She further
submits that though, elder brother and sister of petitioner are
government employees, she is residing separately for years and
no financial assistance has been extended by the siblings. She
contends that in view of the above facts and circumstances,
petitioner duly applied for compassionate appointment before the
respondent authorities but Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer
Ambikapur vide letters dated 1.7.2017 and 23.2.2019
(Annexures P/1 and P/2) rejected the application moved by
petitioner. She further contends that respondent authorities ought
to have considered the case of petitioner as no financial
assistance has been extended by the siblings to petitioner and her
mother. She prays that a direction may be issued to respondent
authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
2) 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. He has relied 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.
3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed in the file.
4) 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 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."
5) In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that her
siblings do not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to
bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy.
6) Admittedly, the petitioner's siblings 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.
7) 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.
8) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any
ground to entertain this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition
is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
