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

The Petitioner is the daughter of Late Shri Heera Singh Sanhara, who died in harness on July 7, 2020, while serving as a Headmaster in a Government Middle School

The Petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the District Education Officer, Dhamtari, via an order dated June 7, 2021

The rejection was grounded on the fact that the Petitioner’s sister, Nutan Sahu, was already in government service

The Petitioner challenged this order, contending that her sister is married, resides in her matrimonial home, and provides no financial support to the Petitioner or her mother

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

2. Whether the Court can direct an inquiry into the financial dependency or lack of support from an employed family member when the policy expressly bars appointment if a family member is employed

Clause 6A of the state’s compassionate appointment policy, which stipulates that if any family member of a deceased married government servant is already in government service, other members are ineligible for appointment

Division Bench precedent in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022), which held that eligibility must be strictly decided per the policy terms without inquiry into the financial condition of family members

Full Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur (Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022), which established that Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot direct inquiries into financial dependency if the policy explicitly prohibits consideration when a family member is already employed

The court found that the Petitioner’s sister’s status as a government employee directly triggered the prohibitory provision of Clause 6A

The court reasoned that the definition of "family" under the policy includes sons and daughters (including married/widowed/divorced), and the presence of any such member in government service disqualifies other dependents

Applying the Umesh Thakur precedent, the court emphasized that it cannot "reword" or "revise" the policy to mandate a financial inquiry where the policy itself does not provide for one

The court noted that the Petitioner’s claim—that her sister lives separately and offers no financial support—is legally insufficient to bypass the express bar in the scheme

It concluded that compassionate appointments are not a matter of right and must be granted strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy

The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the Petitioner’s challenge to the order dated June 7, 2021

No order as to costs was made