1 2025:CGHC:46699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3507 of 2019 1 - Smt. Aparna Nishad D/o Late R.R. Rajbhanu Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Jai Budhdev Para, Nagar, Panchayat Malhar, Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralya Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Raipur Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Office At Pension Bada, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.09.16 11:42:35 +0530 2 Order on Board 12/09/2025 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s): “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders by allowing the writ petition and to direct the respondents authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a reasonable period and to set-aside the order dated 15-03-2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2, in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court further kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case of the petitioner for kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submits that R. R. Rajbhanu/father of the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade - I in the O/o. Respondent No.2. He died in harness on 15.09.2015. The petitioner has filed application for grant of compassionate appointment on 27.09.2016 and amended application on 03.05.2017 and the said applications were not decided by the respondent authorities, therefore, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition (S) No.7667/2018, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2018, directing respondents 3 to take decision on the claim/application of the petitioner within a period of 90 days. In compliance of the said order, respondent No.2 has considered the case of the petitioner and dismissed her application vide order (Annexure P/10) dated 15.03.2019 on the ground that since brother of the petitioner Keshar Kumar Rajbhanu is working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – II, therefore, she is not entitled to get compassionate appointment in view of Clause 6 of Consolidated Instruction, 2013 issued by Government of Chhattisgarh for grant of compassionate appointment, hence, the petitioner has filed instant petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that though the elder brother of the petitioner was posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II at the time death of father of the petitioner, but he is residing separately and did not financially help to the family. Further, at the time of death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner was unmarried, therefore, she is entitled to get compassionate appointment on the ground of death of her father. Hence, he prayed that impugned order (Annexure P/10) dated 15.03.2019 may be set-aside and the relief(s) as sought for by the petitioner be granted to her. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their separate reply. 5. Learned State counsel referring to Clause 6(a) of the Consolidated Instruction, 2013 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh for grant of compassionate appointment would 4 submit that since brother of the petitioner was already working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, therefore, in view of Clause 6(a) of the Consolidated Instruction, 2013, the petitioner is not entitled for to get appointment on the compassionate ground. He further submits that this issue has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Umesh Thakur in WA No.236/2022, that if any family member of the deceased employee is employed in government service, than no other family member is entitled to get compassionate appointment, hence, he prayed that instant petition is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the material available on record. 7. As per Clause 6(a) of Consolidated Instruction, 2013 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh for grant of compassionate appointment, if any family member of the deceased employee is employed in government service, then other family members shall not be entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. 8. In the case of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Umesh Thakur (supra), Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court has settled this issue and held that if any member of the family is in Government service, then other family members of deceased employee are not eligible for compassionate appointment. In the instant case, undisputedly, elder brother of the petitioner - Keshar Kumar Rajbhanu is in Government service i.e. on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – II, 5 at the time of death of father of petitioner, therefore, in view of Clause 6(a) of Consolidated Instruction, 2013 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh for grant of compassionate appointment and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court, petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. 9. In view of above discussion, there is no illegality or infirmity found in impugned order Annexure P/10, dated 15.03.2019 passed by respondent No.2 denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner, hence, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi