Employment of any family member in government service disqualifies other dependents from compassionate appointment.

The petitioners are the widow (Petitioner No. 1) and the divorced daughter (Petitioner No. 2) of the late Mulchand Satnami, who died in harness on December 27, 2018, while serving as a Fieldman in the Department of Rural Industries.

Petitioner No. 1 initially applied for compassionate appointment; however, she later requested that Petitioner No. 2 be considered for the role as she had become overage.

The deceased employee also had a son who was already employed in government service at the time of the application.

The petitioners contended that the son lived separately in Bengaluru and did not provide financial support, leaving them in severe financial hardship.

The State opposed the petition, citing policy restrictions regarding existing government employees within the family.

1. Whether a dependent of a deceased government servant is eligible for compassionate appointment under Clause 6A of the State policy if another family member is already in government service.

2. Whether the financial independence or separate living status of an employed family member permits the court to bypass the express prohibitions contained in the compassionate appointment policy.

The court primarily applied Clause 6A of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated August 29, 2016, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh.

This clause stipulates that if any member of the family of a deceased married government servant is already in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment.

The court further relied on the precedent set by the Division Bench in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022), which held that the policy does not envisage an inquiry into the financial condition of dependents and must be strictly interpreted according to its terms.

The court found that the eligibility for compassionate appointment is strictly governed by the prevailing policy and cannot be granted on a regular basis or as a matter of right.

Applying Clause 6A to the facts, the court noted it was undisputed that the deceased's son, Rameshwar Suryawanshi, was already in government service.

The court rejected the petitioners' argument regarding their financial distress and the son's separate residence, stating that such circumstances do not provide a legal ground to bypass the mandatory bar under Clause 6A.

The court emphasized that it lacks the authority to direct appointments that run contrary to the express conditions of the government's policy.

The court answered the legal questions by affirming that Clause 6A operates as an absolute bar in such circumstances, regardless of the financial relationship between family members.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.