Government service of a family member bars compassionate appointment, regardless of financial dependency.

The petitioner is the son of Late Ram Dhruw, a Head Constable who died in harness on March 21, 2022

Following his father’s death, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment on April 2, 2022

This application was rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur, on June 10, 2022, on the grounds that the deceased’s second wife (the petitioner’s stepmother), Smt. Urmila Dhruw, was already in government service

The petitioner challenged this rejection, contending that he lives separately and receives no financial support from his stepmother, and requested the Court to direct an inquiry into his financial status

1. Whether a dependent is entitled to compassionate appointment under the state policy when another family member of the deceased government servant is already in government service

2. Whether the Court can direct an inquiry into the financial dependency of a claimant when the governing policy expressly prohibits appointment due to the existing employment of a family member

The Court applied Clause 6A of the Compassionate Appointment Policy (inserted via circular dated August 29, 2016), which stipulates that if any member of a deceased government servant's family is already in government service, no other member is eligible for compassionate appointment

This rule was supported by the Division Bench ruling in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022), which defined "family" to include the spouse and children

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh Ors. v. Umesh Thakur (Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022), which held that courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot direct inquiries into financial dependency if the policy contains an express bar based on the employment of a family member

The Court observed that the fact of the stepmother’s government employment was undisputed

Applying Clause 6A of the policy, the Court reasoned that the petitioner became ineligible for appointment the moment it was established that a family member (the widow) was already employed

Regarding the petitioner's plea for a financial status inquiry, the Court cited the Full Bench's clarification that such an inquiry is legally impermissible as it would amount to "rewording or revising" the terms of the government policy

The Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to challenge the validity of the circular dated August 29, 2016, which established the restrictive criteria

Consequently, the petitioner’s personal circumstances regarding separate living arrangements and lack of financial support were deemed irrelevant in the face of the express policy prohibition

The Court affirmed that since the second wife of the deceased is in government service, the petitioner is barred from seeking compassionate appointment under Clause 6A

No relief was granted, and no order as to costs was made