[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Durgesh Kumar Baiga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026

Digitally

2026:CGHC:14350
signed by
SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR
TAMRAKAR Date:
2026.03.27
11:06:20
+0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3688 of 2022
• Durgesh Kumar Baiga S/o Late Lamuram Baiga, Aged About 21 Years
Presently Posted As Assistant Grade -III, At Government Higher Secondary
School, Jogisar, Block Gaurella, District Gorela, Pendra And Marwahi R/o :-
Vill. Nivaskhar, Tah Lormi, Dist :- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur),
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. District Education Officer, Department Of School Education, District Gorela,
Pendra And Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
3. Block Education Officer, Department Of School Education, District Gorela,
Pendra And Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate For State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.03.2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned Dismissal order Dated 20.04.2022 (P/1) issued by the District Education Officer, Gorella, pendra Marwahi.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to re-instate the service of the petitioner will all back wages.

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

direct the respondent authorities to set-aside/quash the rule 6(a) of the circular no. F 7-1/2019/1-3 Dated 23.02.2019 (P/2)

10.4 To grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner."

2. Mr. Shadangi would submit that father of the petitioner, namely, Lamuram

Baiga was a Peon under the respondents, who died in harness on 28.04.2021.

He would contend that an application for grant of compassionate

appointment was moved by the petitioner, which was allowed by the

respondent authorities and order of appointment to the post of Assistant

Grade - III was issued on 02.06.2021. It is argued that respondent No. 2 vide

order dated 20.04.2022 canceled the appointment of the petitioner on the

ground that brother of the petitioner, namely, Kamlesh Baiga is already in

Government service working on the post of Assistant Teacher and his

services have been absorbed by the School Education Department. He would

contend that the petitioner is residing separately and brother of the petitioner

never supporting the petitioner financially and no enquiry was conducted in

this regard. He would pray to set-aside the order dated 20.04.2022.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Anway Tiwari would submit that according to Clause

6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, if any family member of the

deceased government servant is already in Government service, other

dependents would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. The State

counsel further relies 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 on record.

5. Perusal of order dated 20.04.2022(Annexure P/1) would show that elder

brother of the 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."

6. In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that 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. 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.

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

$iddhant