[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Hira Singh Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:17412
NAFR
NIRMALA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAO
WPS No. 3610 of 2022
1 - Hira Singh Dhruv S/o Late Shri Taram Singh Dhruv Aged About 25 Years
Resident Of Ghumrabhata Post Arang District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner, Higher Education Block 3 Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate
alongwith Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate
For State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
16.4.2026
1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
Annexure P-1, in the interest of justice.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to held
clause 6 (a) of policy dated 23.09.2019 as void and
inoperative being arbitrary, discriminatory and reinstate the
petitioner with all the consequential benefit, in the interest of
justice or direct the respondent authority to consider and
grant compassionate appointment as per judgment of this
Hon'ble Court in W.P.S. No. 5119/2021 within stipulated
period, in the interest of justice.
(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and
circumstances of the case, may also be granted."
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the
petitioner, namely, Taram Singh Dhruv who was working as Peon
at Government Badri Prasad Lodhi PG College, Arang died in
harness on 26.04.2021. He would contend that the petitioner
applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 17.5.2021 but
his application was rejected on the ground that his brother is in
government service. He would submit that pursuant to an order
passed in WP(S) No.5119 of 2021 an enquiry was conducted
wherein it is found that the elder brother of the petitioner, namely
Dineshwar Singh Dhruv is residing separately for years and no
financial assistance has been extended by him. 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. 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."
6) In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that elder
brother of the petitioner does not support or maintain the family cannot
be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the
policy.
7) Admittedly, the elder brother of the petitioner 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.
8) 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.
9) 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
Nimmi
