[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mohnish Gautam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13403
Digitally
signed by
AJINKYA
PANSARE NAFR
Date:
2026.03.20
17:44:01
+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 772 of 2021
Mohnish Gautam S/o Late Brijmohan Gautma Aged About 23 Years
Resident Of Samta Nagar, Govindpur, Near Rice Mill, Govindpur North
Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary / Upper Secretary
Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya ,
New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
3. District Education Officer District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District :
Kanker, Chhattisgarh
4. Block Education Officer Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
5. Government Middle School Village Bar Devari , Block Kanker , District
Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate
For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
20.3.2026
1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of petitioner,
namely, Brijmohan Gautam who was working on the post of Upper
Division Teacher died in harness on 28.4.2010. He further submits that
petitioner was minor back then but he moved application for grant of
compassionate appointment immediately after attaining majority on
4.9.2020 but same has been rejected by District Education Officer,
North Bastar Kanker. He contends that no financial assistance is being
provided by mother of petitioner and petitioner was staying along with
his father whereas mother was residing separately. He further contends
that no inquiry was conducted in this regard by respondents. He 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) Perusal of application moved by the petitioner would show that mother
of petitioner is a government employee and Hon'ble Division Bench in
the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), 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) Admittedly, the petitioner's mother 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.
6) 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.
7) 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
