The High Court of Chhattisgarh unequivocally upholds the policy barring compassionate appointments to any dependent when another family member is already in government service, reaffirming Division Bench precedent and emphasizing strict adherence to government scheme provisions—with binding precedential value for service jurisprudence in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/6524/2022 of DEVANTIN KHADHE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010318312022 |
| Date of Registration | 12-10-2022 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh (High Court Single Judge decision following Division Bench) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Compassionate Appointment) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a family member is entitled to compassionate appointment where another family member is already employed by the government. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that as per Clause 6A of the Chhattisgarh Government policy dated 29.08.2016, if any family member of a deceased government servant is already in government service, no other member of the family is eligible for compassionate appointment. The court reaffirmed that the policy does not require, nor permit, inquiry into the financial condition of dependents. It emphasized that courts cannot issue directions contrary to an express policy bar, and compassionate appointment remains an exception to the general recruitment process and must be applied strictly as per the policy. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Division Bench, Chhattisgarh High Court) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Text and interpretation of Clause 6A of the 29.08.2016 General Administration Department policy; categorical holding in Muniya Bai case. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, widow of a deceased Assistant Teacher, applied for compassionate appointment after her husband’s death in harness. Her application was rejected on grounds that her father-in-law is serving as a Head Master in a government school. She had not challenged the validity of Clause 6A, which bars appointment in such cases. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar policy language |
| Follows | Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Chhattisgarh High Court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that as per Clause 6A (2016 Policy), any government employment of a family member (including parents, in-laws, spouse, children) absolutely bars fresh compassionate appointments within that family.
- Inquiry into actual financial dependence or lack of support from the employed family member is irrelevant under the scheme.
- Validity of the policy was not challenged—only the administrative application was questioned.
- Lawyers should focus on challenging the policy itself (if at all) rather than pleading factual hardship, which is immaterial as per this ruling.
- Strict policy compliance is required; courts cannot direct departures from explicit scheme provisions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed Clause 6A of the General Administration Department’s policy (29.08.2016), which expressly prohibits compassionate appointment to any family member if another family member is already in government service.
- The court relied on the Division Bench decision in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai), which clarified that the policy neither contemplates exceptions for financial hardship nor mandates inquiry into dependency or support within the family.
- The petitioner’s factual claim of lack of support from the father-in-law was held to be immaterial in view of the express policy bar.
- The petitioner had not challenged the validity of Clause 6A; thus, the court applied the policy as written.
- The court underscored that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but an exception to regular public employment, and that such exceptions must be narrowly construed and strictly complied with as defined in the policy.
- Directions contrary to clear government policy cannot be issued by courts.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Husband of the petitioner died in harness while serving as Assistant Teacher.
- Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, arguing for relief due to her status as widow and lack of support from her father-in-law.
Respondent (State)
- Clause 6A of the 2016 policy bars compassionate appointment when any family member is already in government service.
- Relied on Division Bench decision (Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai) which held financial condition or internal family support issues are irrelevant for eligibility.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s husband, an Assistant Teacher, died while in service. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 29.11.2021. Her application was rejected by the authorities on 21.07.2022 since her father-in-law was already employed as a Head Master in a government school. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the rejection.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted Clause 6A of the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, policy dated 29.08.2016, which categorically bars appointment if any family member is in government service.
- The policy lists which relatives are considered ‘family’ for the purpose of compassionate appointments and sets out strict eligibility criteria.
- The court followed the Division Bench’s reading that no inquiry into financial condition of dependents is permitted under the scheme.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
No novel procedural innovations or directions are noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows existing Division Bench precedent and established government policy.
Citations
- Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (Chhattisgarh High Court, Division Bench)
- Policy Dated 29.08.2016, General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh