If a family member is in Government service, no other member is eligible for compassionate appointment.

The petitioner’s father, Harishchanda Ram Watti, an Upper Division Teacher in the School Education Department, died in harness on October 25, 2021

On November 9, 2021, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment. His application was rejected by Respondent No. 2 on March 16, 2022, on the grounds that the petitioner’s elder brother was already employed in the Central Government (Indian Army)

The petitioner challenged this rejection, contending that his brother resides separately and provides no financial assistance to the family

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compassionate appointment when an elder sibling is already in government service, despite allegations of a lack of financial support

2. Whether the court can direct an inquiry into the financial dependency of the deceased's family members when the prevailing policy expressly prohibits appointment if a family member is already employed

Clause 6A of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 29.08.2016 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 appointment

The Division Bench judgment in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022), which held that the policy does not envisage an inquiry into financial conditions

The Full Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur (Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022), which established that courts cannot reword or revise policy terms under Article 226 to mandate dependency inquiries when a policy bar exists

The court reasoned that compassionate appointments are not a general source of recruitment but are governed strictly by the prevailing state policy

Under Clause 6A, the mere fact of a family member’s employment in government service acts as an absolute bar to the eligibility of other dependents

Following the precedent in Umesh Thakur, the court found that it lacked the jurisdiction under Article 226 to bypass this express prohibition by ordering an inquiry into whether the employed brother was actually providing financial support, as such an action would amount to impermissibly "rewording" the executive policy

Since the petitioner did not challenge the validity of the 2016 circular, the policy terms were found to be binding

Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as devoid of merit