Government service of one family member renders another claimant ineligible for compassionate appointment under applicable policy.

The petitioner’s father, Late Shri Prem Singh Kunjam, was serving as a Sub-Forest Ranger, Grade III, and died in harness on 17 May 2018.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 3 August 2018.

Pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in WPS No. 1784 of 2026, the competent authority reconsidered the claim but rejected it by order dated 17 June 2026 on the ground that the petitioner’s sister, Smt. Varsha Kunjam, was already in Government service.

The petitioner challenged the rejection, contending that his sister was a married woman residing separately with her husband and that her service as a Lecturer Panchayat could not be treated as Government service under the circular dated 14 June 2013.

The State defended the order as being consistent with the applicable compassionate-appointment policy.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment despite the fact that his sister, a member of the deceased employee’s family, was already in Government service?

Whether the petitioner’s sister’s separate residence after marriage and alleged non-maintenance of the petitioner’s family justified interference with the competent authority’s decision or relaxation of the applicable policy?

Whether the rejection order dated 17 June 2026 suffered from any jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Compassionate appointment is governed by the applicable Government policy and is not an automatic or vested right.

Where the competent authority determines, in accordance with that policy, that a family member of the deceased employee was already in Government service, the claim of another family member may be rejected.

The Court relied on State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur, WA No. 236 of 2022, decided on 7 July 2023, which, relying on the Full Bench decision of the Court, held that no further inquiry into the dependency or financial support provided by a family member already in Government service to the applicant is permissible.

In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, it cannot direct relaxation of the applicable compassionate-appointment policy merely on equitable considerations.

The competent authority reconsidered the petitioner’s claim pursuant to the High Court’s earlier directions and rejected it because his sister was already in Government service at the relevant time.

The Court held that this determination was made in accordance with the governing policy.

The petitioner’s arguments that his sister was married, lived separately with her husband, and did not maintain the family did not justify judicial interference, since the legal position recognized in Umesh Thakur did not permit an inquiry into the extent of financial support provided by a Government-serving family member to the applicant.

The Court also declined to order relaxation of the policy on equitable grounds and found no jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or illegality in the impugned order.

It held that the petitioner was ineligible for compassionate appointment under the applicable policy because his sister was already in Government service, and that her separate residence and marital status did not warrant a different conclusion.

Finding no legal infirmity in the order dated 17 June 2026, the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit at the motion stage.