Government Employment of Family Member Precludes Compassionate Appointment Regardless of Separate Residence or Financial Dependency

The petitioner is the daughter of Deepak Kumar Verma, a Revenue Inspector who died in harness on April 21, 2021.

Following his death, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment. On August 17, 2021, the Collector of Rajnandgaon rejected the application.

The rejection was based on the fact that the petitioner’s mother is currently a government employee.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, contending that although her mother is employed, she has lived separately for years and provides no financial assistance to the petitioner or her sisters.

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

2. Whether the court can direct an inquiry into the financial condition or lack of support from an employed family member to bypass the restrictive conditions 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. This clause mandates that if any member of the deceased government servant's family is already employed in government service, no other member is eligible for compassionate appointment.

Division Bench precedent in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022), which held that eligibility must be decided strictly according to the terms of the policy and that the policy does not envisage any inquiry into the actual financial condition or support provided by other family members.

The court found that the petitioner’s mother, as the spouse of the deceased, falls within the definition of "family" under Clause 6A of the 2016 Policy. It was undisputed that the mother is a government employee.

Applying the principles from Muniya Bai, the court reasoned that the express bar in Clause 6A cannot be bypassed by claims of family separation or lack of financial support, as the policy does not provide for a subjective assessment of a family's internal financial dynamics.

The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a right but a provision governed strictly by the prevailing policy; consequently, the judiciary cannot issue directions that contradict the explicit terms of such a policy.

The court concluded that the petitioner's plea regarding her mother's lack of support could not override the express policy conditions. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.