Government employment of any family member bars compassionate appointment regardless of financial dependency or support.

The petitioner’s father, Bankeshwar Ram, died in harness on February 12, 2017, while serving as Assistant Grade-II

The petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment, but her applications were rejected by the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer via letters dated July 1, 2017, and February 23, 2019

The rejections were based on the fact that the petitioner’s elder brother and sister were already government employees

The petitioner contended that she resides separately and receives no financial assistance from her siblings, necessitating the appointment to support herself and her mother

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

2. Whether the respondent authorities are required to conduct an inquiry into the financial independence or lack of support from siblings who are already employed in government service

Clause 6A of the Compassionate Appointment Policy (circular dated 29.08.2016) issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which stipulates that if any member of the family of a deceased government servant is already in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment

Division Bench judgment in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022), which established that the policy does not envisage an inquiry into the financial condition of other family members and that eligibility must be strictly decided per the terms of the policy

The court observed that the petitioner did not dispute that her siblings were already in government service

Applying Clause 6A of the 2016 policy, the court noted that the provision serves as an absolute bar to further compassionate appointments within the same family once a member is government-employed

Following the precedent in Muniya Bai, the court reasoned that the policy does not allow for a subjective assessment of whether the employed siblings actually provide financial support to the remaining dependents

The court emphasized that compassionate appointments are not a general source of recruitment but a limited exception that must be governed strictly by the prevailing policy

Since the petitioner did not challenge the validity of the circular containing Clause 6A, the court found no legal basis to bypass the express prohibition contained therein

The court concluded that the plea regarding lack of financial support from siblings cannot override the express conditions of the policy

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit