WPS/7554/2026 of BHOJ SINGH RATHIYA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 14 October 2026

1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 05/08/2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the elder brother of the petitioner is a government employee.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father, who was serving as Patwari under the respondent No.1, died in harness on 10.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, however, the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 05.08.2026 solely on the ground that the petitioner's elder brother is employed on the post of Assistant Professor as a Government Servant. He submits that the petitioner's elder brother is married, living separately and is not providing any financial assistance to the family, which continues to face financial hardship after the death of the sole breadwinner. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and the claim of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered in accordance with law.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the elder brother of the petitioner is in government service at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the authorities rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached with the petition.

5. From perusal of the documents and the contentions raised by the petitioner, it appears that the application of the petitioner has already been rejected on 05/08/2026, by considering the condition enumerated in the policy which was existing at the relevant point of time.

6. The contention of the petitioner that his elder brother is residing separately after marriage and is not extending financial assistance to the family also does not persuade this Court to interfere. The competent authority has considered the petitioner's claim in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy prevailing on the date of consideration and has found the petitioner ineligible on account of the fact that one member of the deceased employee's family was already in Government service. Once the policy prescribes such a disqualification, the authority was bound to act in terms thereof, and this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct relaxation of the policy merely on equitable considerations.

7. Another aspect which cannot be brushed aside is the fact that the basic object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government employee so as to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the sole breadwinner. In the present case, the petitioner's elder brother was already in Government service at the time of the death of the petitioner's father. The petitioner's claim was considered and rejected in accordance with the prevailing policy. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out.

8. The Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur (WA No.236 of 2022, decided on 07.07.2023), while placing reliance upon the Larger Bench/Full Bench decision of this Court, reiterated the legal position and held as under in paragraph 4: “A careful perusal of the order passed by the full Bench would show that the full Bench of this Court has clearly held that no such inquiry can be made qua the dependency / financial support by one of the family members of the deceased who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased who has made the application for compassionate appointment. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain and accordingly, set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent herein would stand dismissed.”

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the competent authority has rejected the petitioner's claim in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy applicable at the relevant point of time. No jurisdictional error, arbitrariness or illegality is found in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court.

10. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merit liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru)

JUDGE Amardeep