1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief :-

          "10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus setting aside the impugned appointment order dated 10.06.2022 (Annexure P/3).

          10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for suitable appointment commensurate with his educational qualification on compassionate appointment basis in the interest of justice.

          10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case."

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner was Head Constable in the Police department, who died in harness on 21.03.2022. He would contend that mother of the petitioner died in the year 2004. He would contend that father of the petitioner performed second marriage to Smt. Urmila Dhruw. It is argued that after death of Late Tekram Dhruw, an application for compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner on 02.04.2022, which has been rejected by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 10.06.2022 on the ground that the second wife of the deceased, Smt. Urmila Dhurw is already in Government service. He would submit that the petitioner is staying separately and financially she does not take care of the petitioner. He would contend that the respondent authorities ought to have conducted an enquiry with regard to financial status of the petitioner.

3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. He would submit that according to the policy of compassionate appointment, if one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is in Government service, the other family member would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file.

5) Perusal of order dated 10.06.2022 would show that second wife of the deceased Government servant is a government employee and Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai, Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, while interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate appointments, has clearly held that if any member of the family of a deceased government servant is already in government service, no other member of the family is eligible for a compassionate appointment. Further an inquiry into the financial condition of dependents is not envisaged in the policy. Therefore, no such direction can be issued. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below:

          "13. Clause 6A of the Scheme reads as follows: "6A. 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. Explanation. Dependents of the family of deceased married and unmarried government servant shall include the following members: A) In case of married government servant - Dependent mother, dependent parents, widow/widower, son and daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) mother, brother and sister."

          15. 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. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment."

6) In view of the above legal position, the plea of the petitioner that second wife of the deceased does not support or maintain the family cannot be a ground to bypass the express condition under Clause 6A of the policy.

7) The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court has passed judgment dated 21-6- 2023 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur in Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, and has observed in paragraph no. 15 which read as under:-

          "15.In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra),Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) and the reference answered by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha (supra) answering the issue involved in this reference and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Parkash Chand's case (supra) and Nitin's case (supra), compassionate appointment has to be granted in accordance with the policy applicable and where the policy applicable for compassionate appointment clearly indicates that where one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service then other members of the family of the deceased Government servant would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, then the writ court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct to hold for enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family members of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by another member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rewording / revising the terms of the applicable policy for compassionate appointment, which, in our considered opinion, is wholly impermissible in law. Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated question as under: -

          When one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing / rewording of the terms of the applicable scheme / policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred.

8) Admittedly, the second wife of the deceased is already in government service, which is not disputed by the petitioner. Clause 6A in the compassionate appointment policy was inserted vide circular dated 29.08.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said circular in the present petition.

9) It is a well-settled principle of law 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.

10) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.