Compassionate appointment is barred where a family member serves in government; dependency inquiries are impermissible.

The petitioner’s father, Diwakar Tiwari, an Assistant Grade-III employee in the respondent department, died in harness on 12 August 2020.

The petitioner, who was the daughter of his first wife, applied for compassionate appointment. Her application was rejected on 28 January 2021 because her stepmother, Kalpana Tiwari—the legally wedded wife of the deceased and a government servant—was already employed in government service.

The petitioner contended that her stepmother was not her biological mother, had children of her own, and did not financially support her; therefore, her claim ought to have been considered independently.

The State relied on Clause 6A of the compassionate appointment policy dated 29 August 2016, which bars compassionate appointment to another family member where one family member of the deceased government servant is already in government service.

Whether the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment despite her stepmother, who was the legally wedded wife of the deceased government servant, already being employed in government service?

Whether the Court could direct an inquiry into the petitioner’s actual dependency or the stepmother’s failure to provide financial support, notwithstanding the express bar under Clause 6A of the applicable policy?

The Court applied Clause 6A of the Chhattisgarh Government’s compassionate appointment policy, introduced through the circular dated 29 August 2016, under which no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment if any family member of the deceased government servant is already employed in government service.

Relying on State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai, Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, the Court held that the policy does not contemplate an inquiry into the financial condition or inter se support provided by family members.

It further relied on the Full Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur, Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, which held that courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot direct an inquiry into dependency or financial support where the applicable policy expressly excludes other family members if one family member is already in government service, as doing so would impermissibly rewrite or reword the policy.

Compassionate appointment must therefore be governed strictly by the prevailing policy, and courts cannot direct appointment contrary to its terms.

The Court found that the petitioner’s stepmother was the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, was herself employed in government service, and was recorded as such in the deceased’s service records.

Consequently, Clause 6A applied notwithstanding the fact that she was not the petitioner’s biological mother or that she allegedly did not maintain or financially support the petitioner.

Under Muniya Bai and Umesh Thakur, such individual financial circumstances could not justify an inquiry or an exception to the express policy bar, since that would amount to judicially modifying the scheme.

The petitioner had also not challenged the validity of the circular dated 29 August 2016.

Accordingly, the rejection of her application was consistent with the governing policy.

The Court further held that it could not direct an inquiry into whether the stepmother actually supported the petitioner financially.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.