[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sontosh Kumar Usendi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026
Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.04.09
17:02:13 +0530
1
2026:CGHC:16316
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5542 of 2021
Sontosh Kumar Usendi S/o Late Mr. Sukhiram Usendi Aged About
26 Years R/o 72, Village Ichhapur Post Mardapoti, District Uttar
Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Home Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Deputy Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Suraksha Bal,
South Baster Range Jagdalpur, District South Baster
Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
3. Commandant 16th Battalion ( Bha/ Ra) Chhattisgarh Suraksha
Bal, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
9.4.2026
1) Facts of present case are that petitioner's father namely Sukhiram
Usendi, who was working on the post of Head Constable under
respondent department died in harness on 26.5.2017. Petitioner,
who is the son of first wife of deceased government servant,
moved application for grant of compassionate appointment which
was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 20.1.2020.
Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred WPS No.
1706 of 2021 which was allowed and respondent authorities were
directed to inquire into the dependency aspect and take
appropriate decision. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 has passed
the order impugned dated 18.8.2021 rejecting the claim of
petitioner on the ground that petitioner's name is not mentioned in
the service record and elder brother of petitioner is in government
service.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, elder
brother of petitioner namely Mohan Ram is in government service
but he happens to be a son from the second marriage of
deceased government servant. He further submits that Mohan
Ram is residing separately for years and no financial assistance
has been extended by him. He contends that in view of the above
facts and circumstances, petitioner duly applied for
compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities but
respondent No. 3 vide orders dated 20.1.2020 and 18.8.2021
(Annexures P/3 and P/5) rejected the application moved by
petitioner. He further contends that respondent authorities ought
to have considered the case of petitioner as no financial
assistance has been extended by the elder brother to the
petitioner and his mother. He prays that a direction may be issued
to respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to
the petitioner.
3) 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.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed in the file.
5) 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.
6) The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court has passed judgment dated
21-6-2023 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Vs.
Umesh Thakur in Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, and has
observed in paragraph no. 15 which read as under:-
"15.In our considered opinion, in view of the
decisions rendered by two Division Benches
of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke
(supra),Kevra Bai Markandey's case
(supra) and the reference answered by
another Division Bench of this Court in
Purendra Kumar Sinha (supra) answering
the issue involved in this reference and in
light of the principles of law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Parkash Chand's case
(supra) and Nitin's case (supra),
compassionate appointment has to be
granted in accordance with the policy
applicable and where the policy applicable
for compassionate appointment clearly
indicates that where one of the family
members of the deceased Government
servant is already in Government service
then other members of the family of the
deceased Government servant would not be
entitled for compassionate appointment,
then the writ court in exercise of its power
and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would not direct to hold
for enquiry qua dependency/financial
support by one of the family members of the
deceased Government servant who is
already in Government service to the other
family members of the deceased
Government servant when a claim is made
by another member of the family for
compassionate appointment, as it would
amount to rewording / revising the terms of
the applicable policy for compassionate
appointment, which, in our considered
opinion, is wholly impermissible in law.
Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated
question as under: -
When one of the family members of the
deceased Government servant is already
in Government service and the applicable
policy bars and prohibits the
consideration of other dependent of the
deceased Government servant for
appointment on compassionate ground,
then this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would not direct for
holding enquiry qua dependency/financial
support by one of the family members of
the deceased Government servant who
is already in Government service to the
other family member of the deceased
Government servant when a claim is
made by other member of the family for
compassionate appointment, as it would
amount to rephrasing / rewording of the
terms of the applicable scheme / policy
for compassionate appointment, as such,
such enquiry is totally barred.
7) In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that his
brother does not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to
bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy.
8) Admittedly, the petitioner's brother is 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.
9) 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.
10) 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
