Policy-based bar on compassionate appointment applies when another family member is already in government service.

Late Hasim Khan, the petitioner’s father, was employed as a Grade III Driver with the Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Bank and died in harness on 21 March 2017 after approximately 33 years of service.

The petitioner, his daughter, applied for compassionate appointment on 17 July 2017.

Her application was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the deceased employee’s son was already in Government service.

The respondents maintained that the Bank had adopted the State Government’s compassionate-appointment policy, under which no other family member could claim such appointment where one family member of the deceased employee was already in Government service.

Whether a dependent daughter of a deceased Government employee is entitled to compassionate appointment when another family member of the deceased is already in Government service?

Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could direct an enquiry into the actual dependency or financial support provided by the family member already in Government service, despite the applicable policy expressly barring another appointment?

Compassionate appointment is governed by the applicable statutory scheme or executive policy and cannot be claimed as an independent right outside its terms.

The Court applied the Full Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Umesh Thakur, W.A. No. 236 of 2022, decided on 21 June 2023, which held that where the applicable policy provides that the presence of one family member in Government service disentitles other family members from compassionate appointment, the writ court cannot direct an enquiry into whether that employed family member is financially supporting the other dependants; doing so would amount to rewriting or revising the policy.

The Court also relied on the earlier decisions referred to by the Full Bench, including Neeraj Kumar Uke, Kevra Bai Markandey, Purendra Kumar Sinha, Parkash Chand, and Nitin.

Judicial review under Article 226 does not permit the Court to modify the conditions of the applicable compassionate-appointment policy.

The Court found that the respondents had rejected the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the applicable policy, which barred compassionate appointment where another family member of the deceased employee was already in Government service.

Applying the Full Bench ruling in Umesh Thakur, the Court held that it could not order a separate inquiry into the degree of dependency or the extent of financial support provided by the petitioner’s employed brother, because such an inquiry would effectively alter the express terms of the policy.

Consequently, the petitioner’s argument that she was nevertheless entitled to consideration as the deceased employee’s daughter was rejected.

Finding no perversity or illegality in the rejection order, the Court dismissed the writ petition for want of merit.