Ku. Himaliya Tiwari vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010166462022 2026:CGHC:38300
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3706 of 2022
 Ku. Himaliya Tiwari D/o Late Shri Diwakar Tiwari, Aged About 19
Years R/o Ward No. 8 Chandniyapara, Janjgir, District Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Women And Child Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Directorate, Women And Child Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Thasil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. District Program Officer, Women And Child Development,
(Integrated Child Welfare Project). District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along
with Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
31.8.2026
1) Facts of present case are that petitioner’s father namely Diwakar
Tiwari, who was working on the post of Assistant Grade-III under
respondent department died in harness on 12.8.2020. Petitioner,
who is the daughter of first wife of deceased government servant,

2
moved application for grant of compassionate appointment which
was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 28.1.2021 on
the ground that step mother of the petitioner namely Kalpana
Tiwari is already in government service.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the step
mother of petitioner is in government service but she is not the
biological mother of petitioner. He further submits that the step-
mother has children of her own therefore petitioner cannot remain
dependent on her for livelihood. 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 order dated 28.1.2021 (Annexure P/1)
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
step mother to the petitioner and her biological mother is no more.
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

3
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

4
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.

5
7) In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that
her step-mother does not support or maintain the family cannot be
a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the
policy.
8) Admittedly, petitioner's step-mother, who is a government servant
is the legally wedded wife of petitioner’s father and her name is
also mentioned in the service record of deceased government
servant. 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
A j i n k y a
Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.09.02
10:42:27 +0530