Government employment of any family member precludes compassionate appointment for other dependents under the policy.

The petitioner’s father, a Sub-Inspector in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, died in service on August 28, 2020

The petitioner, possessing a B.E. in Electrical Engineering, applied for a compassionate appointment

His application was rejected by the Additional Director, State Agriculture Marketing Board, via an order dated December 2, 2020, on the grounds that the petitioner’s brothers were already employed in government service

The petitioner challenged this rejection, contending that his brothers live separately with their own families—evidenced by separate ration cards—and do not provide financial support to him or his widowed mother

1. Whether the petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment under the government policy when other family members are already in government service

2. Whether the separate living status or financial independence of employed siblings necessitates a factual inquiry to bypass the restrictive clauses of the compassionate appointment policy

Clause 6A of the compassionate appointment policy dated August 29, 2016, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which stipulates that if any family member of a deceased government servant is already in government service, no other 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 dependents and must be strictly interpreted according to its terms

The Court observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and must be governed strictly by the prevailing policy

Under Clause 6A, the definition of "family" for a married deceased servant includes sons; since the petitioner’s brothers are admittedly in government service, the exclusionary clause applies

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding the separate living arrangements and ration cards, stating that such factual distinctions cannot bypass the express prohibition in the policy

Following the precedent in Muniya Bai, the Court held that it lacks the authority to direct appointments contrary to the policy or to mandate financial inquiries not contemplated by the scheme

The Court found no illegality in the impugned order dated December 2, 2020

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit