Government employment of one family member precludes compassionate appointment, irrespective of financial dependency or support.

The petitioner’s father, Lamuram Baiga, was a Peon who died in harness on 28.04.2021

Following an application, the petitioner was granted a compassionate appointment as Assistant Grade-III on 02.06.2021

On 20.04.2022, the District Education Officer (Respondent No. 2) cancelled the appointment on the ground that the petitioner’s elder brother was already in government service as an Assistant Teacher

The petitioner challenged the dismissal, contending that he resided separately and received no financial support from his brother

1. Whether the appointment of a dependent can be cancelled under Clause 6A of the compassionate appointment policy if another family member 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 to bypass policy restrictions

The Court primarily applied Clause 6A of the Policy for Compassionate Appointment (Circular No. F 7-1/2019/1-3), which bars dependents from eligibility if any other family member of the deceased is already in government service

the Division Bench judgment in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (WA No. 33 of 2022), which held that the policy does not envisage an inquiry into the financial condition of family members

Full Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur (WA No. 236 of 2022), which established that under Article 226, the Court cannot direct an inquiry into dependency or financial support if the policy expressly prohibits appointment when a family member is already employed, as such a direction would amount to rewriting the policy

The Court noted that the petitioner’s elder brother was admittedly a government employee at the time of the application

It rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding separate living arrangements and lack of financial support, stating these factors cannot bypass the express conditions of Clause 6A

compassionate appointment is not a right but a benefit governed strictly by the prevailing policy

the Court reasoned that since the policy creates a clear prohibition when a family member is already employed, any judicial intervention to assess "actual dependency" would impermissibly alter the terms of the scheme

Consequently, the respondent authorities were justified in cancelling the appointment once the brother’s employment status was verified

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the dismissal order dated 20.04.2022 issued by the District Education Officer. No order as to costs was made.