Chhattisgarh High Court rules compassionate appointment cannot be granted if a family member is already in government service

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 114 | 2026:CGHC:6590

February 05, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a minor seeking compassionate appointment in the police department after the death of his father, holding that such an appointment is barred when another family member is already in government service.

The case was heard by Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, who upheld the rejection of the application made on behalf of five-and-a-half-year-old Mayank Singh through his mother.

Mayank’s father, Yuvraj Singh, was serving as a constable driver in the Chhattisgarh Police and died in harness on December 18, 2018. Following his death, the family applied for the child’s appointment to the post of Bal Ardali (boy orderly) on compassionate grounds. However, the Superintendent of Police rejected the request on October 4, 2019, citing a state government circular dated August 29, 2016.

The circular clearly states that compassionate appointment cannot be granted if one member of the deceased government employee’s family is already employed in government service. In this case, the petitioner’s mother is a government school teacher whose services have been regularised under the School Education Department.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that Regulation 60 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations should apply, which allows the appointment of boy orderlies and gives preference to sons of police personnel. The State opposed this, contending that Regulation 60 deals with general recruitment preferences and does not override the compassionate appointment policy.

The Court agreed with the State’s position, observing that Regulation 60 has no connection with compassionate appointments. It further held that the police department is fully bound by state government policies, including the 2016 circular that prohibits compassionate appointments in cases where another family member is already a government employee.

Justice Agrawal also relied on a 2023 Full Bench decision of the High Court, which ruled that courts cannot direct compassionate appointment inquiries when the applicable policy expressly bars such appointments. Finding no legal merit in the petition, the Court dismissed.

Case Reference : WPS No. 559 of 2020, Mayank Singh (minor), son of late Yuvraj Singh, through natural guardian, versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others; counsel for the petitioner: Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate; counsel for the respondents: Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer.