The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that compassionate appointments under state policy are strictly governed by explicit eligibility criteria, and cannot be extended on grounds of financial hardship when a family member is already in government service. This ruling underscores the non-negotiable nature of policy conditions over equitable considerations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ku. Barkha Verma, daughter of the late Deepak Kumar Verma, sought a compassionate appointment following her father’s death in harness on 21.04.2021. Deepak Kumar Verma was a Revenue Inspector in the Government of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner, aged 23 at the time of application, claimed she was financially unsupported by her mother, who is a government employee, and that no other family member was employed in government service. She submitted an application for compassionate appointment to the Collector, Rajnandgaon, which was rejected by letter dated 17.08.2021.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s father, Deepak Kumar Verma, died in service on 21.04.2021
- The petitioner’s mother is a government employee, a fact not disputed by the petitioner
- The petitioner has two sisters, none of whom are employed in government service
- The petitioner’s mother resides separately and allegedly provides no financial support to the petitioner or her sisters
- The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on or before 15.07.2021
- The Collector, Rajnandgaon, rejected the application on 17.08.2021 on the ground of Clause 6A of the Chhattisgarh Compassionate Appointment Policy
- The petitioner filed the writ petition on 28.09.2021
Procedural History
- 21.04.2021: Death of Deepak Kumar Verma, Revenue Inspector
- 15.07.2021: Petitioner submits application for compassionate appointment
- 17.08.2021: Collector, Rajnandgaon, rejects application citing Clause 6A of the policy
- 28.09.2021: Writ Petition No. 6917 of 2021 filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh
- 17.03.2026: Hearing concluded and judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that her mother, despite being a government employee, does not provide financial support to her or her sisters. She contended that the spirit of compassionate appointment - to alleviate hardship - should override the literal application of Clause 6A. She relied on principles of equity and humanitarian grounds.
For the Respondents: The State contended that Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 is unambiguous: if any family member is in government service, no other member is eligible. The State relied on the binding precedent in Muniya Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022), which held that financial condition of dependents is irrelevant under the policy.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent authorities to grant her a compassionate appointment in the Government of Chhattisgarh, in lieu of her father’s post or any equivalent post, on the grounds of financial vulnerability and absence of support from her mother.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the express condition in Clause 6A of the Chhattisgarh Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2016 - which disqualifies a family member from compassionate appointment if any other family member is already in government service - can be overridden by evidence of financial hardship or lack of support from the employed family member.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the policy’s objective is to provide relief to families left destitute after the death of a government servant. She emphasized that her mother, though employed, does not contribute financially to the household, leaving the petitioner and her sisters without means of support. She cited State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh to argue that courts may relax rigid policy conditions in exceptional humanitarian circumstances. She contended that Clause 6A, if applied mechanically, defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment.
For the Respondent
The State counsel relied on the binding judgment in Muniya Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, wherein the Division Bench held that Clause 6A is a clear, non-discretionary bar. The State argued that the policy does not permit inquiry into the financial status of family members. It further submitted that the petitioner did not challenge the validity of the 2016 circular introducing Clause 6A, and therefore could not seek to circumvent its terms. The State emphasized that compassionate appointments are privileges, not rights, and must be granted strictly as per policy.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a textual and contextual analysis of Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016. It noted that the clause explicitly states: "In the family of the deceased married government servant, if any other member of the family is already in government service, then the other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment." The Court emphasized that the policy does not contain any exception for financial hardship, nor does it empower authorities to conduct a means test.
"A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would go to show that it does not envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5."
The Court held that the definition of "family" under the policy is exhaustively listed in Clause 6A’s Explanation, and includes the mother, widow, sons, and daughters. The fact that the petitioner’s mother is employed in government service triggers the disqualification under Clause 6A, irrespective of whether she provides financial support.
The Court further observed that the petitioner did not challenge the validity of the 2016 circular introducing Clause 6A. Therefore, the Court could not entertain a plea to read down or circumvent a policy provision that remains legally valid and unchallenged. The Court reiterated the settled principle that "applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the policy in force."
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner is ineligible for compassionate appointment under Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 because her mother is a government employee. No direction for appointment was issued. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Policy Terms Override Humanitarian Claims
- Practitioners must advise clients that financial hardship, even if extreme, cannot override an express disqualification clause in a compassionate appointment policy
- Courts will not entertain petitions seeking to equitably reinterpret policy language unless the policy itself permits such discretion
- Any challenge to the validity of a policy clause must be raised separately; it cannot be circumvented by pleading hardship
No Room for Judicial Discretion in Eligibility Criteria
- The judgment reinforces that compassionate appointments are administrative privileges governed by statutory or policy rules, not judicial discretion
- Even if the family is economically vulnerable, eligibility is determined solely by the presence or absence of a government-employed family member as defined in the policy
- Legal arguments must focus on policy interpretation and procedural compliance, not moral appeals
Clarity on "Family" Under Compassionate Appointment Schemes
- The Court’s reliance on Clause 5 and 6A confirms that "family" is a defined term under these policies, excluding extended relatives unless explicitly included
- Practitioners should verify the exact definition of "family" in the relevant state policy before filing applications
- Where a parent is employed, children - even if dependent - are barred from eligibility, regardless of marital status or financial dependency
