1 2025:CGHC:20111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3066 of 2025 1 - Vivek Kumar Chandel S/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Chandel Aged About 36 Years Occupation - Unemployed, R/o Village - Kohlatola, Post And Tahsil - Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 4 - District Education OfÏcer Rajnandgaon, Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - District Education OfÏcer Khairagarh, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.05.03 17:26:20 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 02.05.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 5. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment after making an inquiry on the dependency part. 10.3 That, any other relief/order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the cost of the petition may kindly be passed.” 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner’s father namely Late shri Vijay Kumar Chandel was working as Lecturer in the Government High School Gataparnaka Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) in the Department of School Education and he died in harness on 22.02.2020. The petitioner is a son of the deceased seeking compassionate appointment in the place of her father and moved an application for the compassionate appointment with all the relevant documents on 22.04.2020 (Annexure P/3). The respondent vide (Annexure P/1) 3 dated 20.01.2025 rejected his application stating that the petitioner’s elder brother Mr. Alok Kumar Chandel is already working as Govt. Employee in the Food Corporation of India, Wardha (Divisional OfÏce, Nagpur), therefore he is not entitled for the compassionate appointment. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his elder brother Mr. Alok Kumar Chandel is already working as Govt. Employee in the Food Corporation of India, Wardha (Divisional OfÏce, Nagpur), therefore he is not entitled for the compassionate appointment. He would further submit that the petitioner and his family were dependent upon deceased employee who is father of petitioner and the elder brother of the petitioner is separately living from the petitioner since long time and does not maintain them and the petitioner was dependent on his father who died in harness on 22.02.2020. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Choubey, would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. He would submit that according to the policy which is prevailing at present, if any of the members of the deceased employee’s family is/are in Government Service, the claim of the other member of the family will not be considered for compassionate appointment. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the father of the petitioner died on 22.02.2020; and the father of petitioner was 4 working as Lecturer in the Government High School Gataparnaka Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) at the time of the death. 7. From the pleadings of the writ petition, it is quite vivid that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 20.01.2025 on the ground that one of the family member i.e. his elder brother is already in government service, in light of the circular dated 15.04.2024, where it is provided that if one of the members of the family is in government service, the claim of the dependent for compassionate appointment shall not be considered. 8. According to the circular dated 15.04.2024, issued by General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh it has provided that if one of the members of the family is in government service, the claim of the dependent for compassionate appointment shall not be considered. 9. Taking into consideration above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the authority concerned has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib