Case brief
What is this about?
High Court of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 772 of 2021, decided 20.3.2026 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. – DISMISSED. Compassionate appointment on death in harness (father, Upper Division Teacher, died 28.4.2010; application on attaining majority 4.9.2020) refused because petitioner's mother was already in government service; Clause 6A of GAD policy dated 29.08.2016 bars appointment to any other family member and excludes financial-condition inquiry; petitioner did not challenge the circular; reliance placed on Division Bench ruling in State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai (W.A. No. 33 of 2022). Relevant to claims for compassionate appointment blocked by another family member's government employment and to the principle that courts cannot direct appointments contrary to prevailing policy.
What did the court decide?
The petitioner's mother is admittedly already in government service, which is not disputed; Clause 6A of the compassionate appointment policy (inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016, whose validity was not challenged) renders no other family member eligible for compassionate appointment, therefore no such direction can be issued.