Sameer Deep Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest And Climate Diversion Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Divisional Forest Officer Bijapur, District - Bijapur Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - The Deputy Divisional Forest Officer/ Chairman Scrutiny Committee, Bijapur, District - Bijapur Chhattisgarh

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal along with Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shahil Singh, PL

¶17

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board

¶18

17/07/2026

¶19

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 15.07.2025 and 18.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that one of the family members is already serving in Government service, rendering the petitioner ineligible in terms of the

¶20

2

¶21

applicable Government Policy governing compassionate appointment.

¶22

The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner's father, Late Shri Ashok Sahu, who was serving as a Forester under the Forest Department, died in harness on 28.01.2025. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. Subsequently, the respondents found that the petitioner's step-brother was already serving in Government service and, therefore, by order dated 15.07.2025, rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation stating that although his step-brother is in Government service, he has been residing separately with his own family and has no social, residential or financial relationship either with the petitioner or with his mother. The said representation was also rejected by the respondent No.2 vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2025.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the petitioner's step-brother is employed in Government service, he has been residing separately from the family for several years and has no social, residential or financial relationship either with the petitioner or with his mother. It is further submitted that the petitioner's step-brother is maintaining a separate establishment and is not extending any financial assistance to the petitioner or his mother. According to the petitioner, merely because the petitioner's step-brother is in Government service, the petitioner could not have been held disentitled to compassionate appointment, particularly when the step-brother neither resides with nor supports the family of the deceased employee.

¶24

3

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission made by the petitioner and would submit that after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective and upon due consideration of the applicable policy with regard to the compassionate appointment, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner. The same is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record.

¶27

The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is governed by the Chhattisgarh Compassionate Appointment Policy. The validity of the impugned orders has, therefore, to be examined strictly in the light of the governing policy.

¶28

The precise issue as to whether the Court can direct an enquiry regarding dependency or financial support by a family member who is already in Government service while considering entitlement to compassionate appointment has already been authoritatively answered by the Full Bench of this Court. The said opinion has been applied by the Division Bench in State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Umesh Thakur (WA No.236 of 2022, decided on 07.07.2023) . The Division Bench, relying upon the Full Bench decision, has categorically held that when one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars consideration of another dependent for compassionate appointment, this Court, in

¶29

4

¶30

exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct an enquiry regarding dependency or financial support rendered by such employed family member, as doing so would amount to rephrasing or rewriting the terms of the Compassionate Appointment Policy. Consequently, the order of the learned Single Judge directing such an enquiry was set aside and the writ petition itself was dismissed.

¶31

In the present case, the entire edifice of the petitioner's challenge rests upon the plea that although his step-brother is in Government service, he has been residing separately for several years and is not extending any financial support either to the petitioner or to his mother. Acceptance of such a contention would necessarily require this Court to undertake an enquiry regarding dependency and financial support, which, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench as applied by the Division Bench in Umesh Thakur (supra) , is clearly impermissible.

¶32

Once the applicable policy itself creates a disqualification where a family member is already in Government service, the Court cannot dilute or modify the conditions contained therein by directing an enquiry into the actual financial relationship between the family members. Any such exercise would amount to rewriting the policy, which is beyond the permissible limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid binding precedent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 15.07.2025 and 18.09.2025 do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or

¶34

5

¶35

jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself, being devoid of merits.

¶37

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶38

Rahul

Sameer Deep Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Deep Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Kumar Banchhor Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ved Prakash Yadav Vs Shri S. Gopalakrishnan

Gram Panchayat Tamnar Vs Mayank Chaturvedi

Nem Prakash Lahrey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Lahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anand Kumar Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited