1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2534 of 2021 1 - Ku. Bharti Sonekar D/o Late Ashok Sonekar Aged About 30 Years R/o Qdtr. No. I/25, University Colony, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Through Registrar G. E. Road, Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Sudeep Johri, Advocate along with Mr.J.K. Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer For respondent No.2 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call the record of the petitioner. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to issue any Writ/ writs, order/ orders, Direction/ directions in the circumstances of the case to command the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by quashing the impugned order dated 22-1-2021 (Annexure P-1): 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay the monetary benefits attached to the post from the date of filing application for -2- compassionate appointment till the date of actual appointment with all consequential benefits.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Lower Division Clerk under respondent No.2 and died in harness on 23.02.2013. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 06.05.2013 before respondent No.2. She moved another application on 15.10.2015. When no decision was taken, WPS No.4747 of 2020 was filed and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to decide claim of the petitioner expeditiously. Respondent No.2 rejected the application vide order dated 22.01.2021 on the ground that Pramod Sonekar, son of the deceased was granted compassionate appointment in the year 2018. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the petitioner was working on the post of Upper Division Clerk under respondent No.2, who died in harness on 11.08.2015 and thereafter, an application for compassionate appointment was moved by the brother of the petitioner namely, Pramod Sonekar and it was allowed. He would further submit that the father of the petitioner died on 23.02.2013 and another application was moved and same has been rejected on the ground that one of the member of the deceased family is already in the service. He would contend that there was separate cause of action after death of father of the petitioner, therefore,respondent No.2 ought to have considered the application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He would pray to quash the order dated 22.01.2021. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Choubey, learned counsel appearing for 3 respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He would submit that the Policy for compassionate appointment issued by the State Government applies with the University. He would further submit that according to Clause 6(a) of the Policy, if any of the family member of the deceased is in public service, any other member would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. He would contend that one of the family members of the petitioner is already in the service, therefore the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. He would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Ms. Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contentions made by Mr. Choubey. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. According to Clause 6(a) of the Policy for the compassionate appointment, if one of the member of the family is in government service, any other members would not be entitled for the compassionate appointment. It is not in dispute that Pramod Sonekar, brother of the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on account of death of his mother and thus, one of the member of the family is already in service, therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application for grant of compassionate appointment. This petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha