Compassionate appointment is barred when another family member already holds government service.

The petitioner’s father, Laxman Singh Banjare, was a Head Master employed under the respondent authorities and died in harness on 31 March 2021.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, but his claim was rejected on the ground that his brothers, Jayprakash Banjare and Subhash Banjare, were already employed in government service.

The petitioner earlier approached the High Court in WPS No. 4702 of 2021, pursuant to which the authorities were directed to reconsider his claim after examining the question of dependency.

On reconsideration, the claim was again rejected by order dated 17 December 2021.

The petitioner challenged that order, asserting that he lived separately with his mother and that his government-employed brothers did not financially support him.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment when other eligible family members of the deceased government servant were already employed in government service under Clause 6A of the applicable policy?

Whether the Court could direct an inquiry into the petitioner’s individual financial dependency or the financial support provided by his government-employed brothers despite the express bar contained in Clause 6A?

Compassionate appointment is not a vested or inherent right and must be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable government policy.

Clause 6A of the compassionate appointment policy provides that where any member of the family of a deceased government servant is already in government service, another family member is not eligible for compassionate appointment.

In State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Mukharjee, W.A. No. 33 of 2022, the Division Bench held that the policy does not contemplate an inquiry into the financial condition or inter se support arrangements of family members when the policy expressly bars appointment.

The Full Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur, W.A. No. 236 of 2022, further held that directing such an inquiry under Article 226 would amount to rewording or revising the applicable policy, which is impermissible.

The Court found that the petitioner’s brothers were government employees and fell within the relevant category of family members under the compassionate appointment scheme.

Consequently, Clause 6A expressly barred the petitioner’s claim.

The petitioner’s assertion that his brothers did not maintain or financially support him could not override the plain terms of the policy.

Following Muniya Mukharjee and the Full Bench ruling in Umesh Thakur, the Court held that it could not order a separate inquiry into actual financial dependency, because doing so would effectively modify the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Government.

Since compassionate appointment had to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing policy, the authorities’ rejection of the petitioner’s claim was legally sustainable.

It held that the existence of government-employed family members attracted the bar under Clause 6A and that no inquiry into whether those members actually supported the petitioner was permissible.

Finding no ground to interfere with the order dated 17 December 2021, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.