Ganpati Khunteshwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026

                                               1




Digitally                                                     2026:CGHC:13961
signed by
AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
                                                                            NAFR
2026.03.24
14:23:06
+0530

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                    WPS No. 1895 of 2021

                Ganpati Khunteshwar, S/o Late Gangadin Khunteshwar, Aged
                 About 25 Years R/o. Village Matiya, Police Station And Tahsil
                 Kasdaol, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.,
                 District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                                ... Petitioner(s)

                                            versus

               1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary (Home), Mahanadi
                  Bhawan Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
                  Chhattisgarh.,     District   :     Raipur,      Chhattisgarh

               2. Inspector General Of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur, District Raipur
                  Chhattisgarh.,     District      :     Raipur,      Chhattisgarh

               3. Superintendent Of Police, Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, District
                  Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-
                  Bhathapara,                                        Chhattisgarh

               4. Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Administration), Police
                  Headquarter, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
                  Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                            ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Bharat Sharma, Adv.

For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

24.3.2026

1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of petitioner,

namely, Gangadin Khunteshwar who was working on the post of

Head Constable died in harness on 28.4.2015. He further submits

that petitioner moved application for grant of compassionate

appointment but same has been rejected twice by Superintendent

of Police, Balodabazar-Bhatapara vide orders dated 5.1.2017 and

17.3.2020. He contends that no financial assistance is being

provided by brother of petitioner who is a government servant and

petitioner was staying along with his father whereas brother 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

brother 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) 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.

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) 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.

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

Ajinkya