1 2025:CGHC:36153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3499 of 2021 * - Yogendra Vishwakarma S/o Late Mr. Rajkumar Vishwakarma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dhabapara, Choriya, Post Sarona, Tahsil Narharpur, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (Chhattisgarh), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Public Education, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 Quash / set aside 23.06.2021. 10.2 Direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the case and grants the compassionate appointment to the petitioner according to his qualification. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may awarded in favor of the petitioner. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.01 10:45:01 +0530 2 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Head Master under respondent authorities and died in harness on 16.09.2019. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 07.12.2019 before respondent authorities. When no decision was taken, WPS No.1426 of 2021 was filed and the case of the petitioner was remitted back to the authorities concerned for reconsidering the claim of the petitioner, subject to an enquiry so far as the dependency part is concerned. Respondent No.2 rejected the application vide order dated 23.06.2021 on the ground that Chandraprakash Vishwakarma, son of the deceased is already in government service in the police department. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Head Master under the respondent authorities, who died in harness on 16.09.2019. He would further submit that the father of the petitioner died on 16.09.2019 and application was moved for compassionate appointment and same has been rejected on the ground that one of the member (brother of the petitioner) 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 23.06.2021. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vedant Shadangi, learned counsel appearing for State 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 3 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. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. 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 Chandraprakash Vishwakarma, brother of the petitioner is already in government service 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 vatti