Family member’s government employment bars compassionate appointment irrespective of actual financial dependency or support.

The petitioner’s father, a Constable (GD), died in harness on February 4, 2011

The petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment, which the respondent authorities rejected because two of the petitioner's brothers were already in government service

In a previous round of litigation (WPS No. 7039 of 2016), the High Court directed a factual inquiry to determine if the petitioner received financial support from his employed brothers

Although the inquiry confirmed that the brothers provided no financial assistance, the respondents again rejected the petitioner’s application on November 25, 2020, citing Clause 3(8) of the compassionate appointment policy

The petitioner challenged this rejection, seeking relaxation under a 2013 notification

1. Whether a dependent is eligible for compassionate appointment under the State’s policy if other family members of the deceased government servant are already in government service

2. Whether the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can direct an inquiry into the financial dependency of a claimant when the applicable policy expressly prohibits appointment due to the employment of another family member

The Court primarily applied Clause 3(8) and Clause 6A of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, which stipulates that if any family member of a deceased government servant is already in government service, other dependents are ineligible for appointment

It relied on the Division Bench precedent in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022), which held that the policy does not envisage inquiries into the financial condition of family members

Furthermore, the Court followed the Full Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh Ors. v. Umesh Thakur (Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022), establishing that courts cannot reword or revise policy terms to mandate dependency inquiries when an express bar exists

The Court reasoned that compassionate appointment is not a general right but a benefit governed strictly by the prevailing policy

Under Clause 6A of the Scheme, the definition of "family" includes sons; since the petitioner’s brothers (sons of the deceased) were already government employees, the petitioner became ineligible regardless of their lack of financial support

The Court emphasized the Full Bench's holding in Umesh Thakur, noting that once a policy bar is established, any judicial direction to conduct a "factual inquiry" into financial dependency amounts to an impermissible rewriting of the policy

The petitioner’s plea regarding his brothers’ failure to maintain the family was deemed legally insufficient to bypass the express prohibitive conditions of the scheme

The Court concluded that it cannot grant relief contrary to the express terms of the recruitment policy

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit