No Judicial Inquiry into Financial Dependency Permitted if Policy Bars Compassionate Appointment due to Family Member’s Government Employment

The petitioner’s mother, Manvati Panigrahi, an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department, died in harness on May 4, 2021.

The petitioner, the elder son of the deceased, applied for compassionate appointment on August 20, 2021.

On March 22, 2022, the District Education Officer (Respondent No. 3) rejected the application on the grounds that the petitioner’s younger brother, Kamlesh Panigrahi, was already employed as a Ward Boy in the Health Department.

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

1. Whether a dependent of a deceased government servant is eligible for compassionate appointment if another family member is already in government service, regardless of their financial contribution to the family.

2. Whether the court can direct an inquiry into the financial dependency or support provided by an employed family member when the applicable policy contains an express bar.

Clause 6A of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated August 29, 2016, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which prohibits appointment if any family member is already in government service.

The Division Bench precedent in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022), which held that eligibility must be strictly decided per policy terms without financial inquiry.

The Full Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur (Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022), which affirmed that courts cannot reword or revise policy terms to mandate dependency inquiries.

The court reasoned that compassionate appointments are not a general right but are governed strictly by the prevailing policy.

Under Clause 6A of the 2016 policy, the mere fact of a family member being in government service acts as an absolute bar to another member’s claim.

The court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the validity of this circular.

Following the Full Bench ruling in Umesh Thakur, the court held that it lacks the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to bypass express policy prohibitions by ordering inquiries into whether the employed brother actually supports the petitioner.

Since the petitioner admitted his brother is in government service, the rejection by the respondent authorities was deemed legally sound.

The court held that the petition was devoid of merit as it sought relief contrary to the express conditions of the 2016 policy.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the order of rejection dated March 22, 2022, was upheld.