1 2025:CGHC:36154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3479 of 2021 * - Himani Toppo D/o Late Shri Pitar Toppo Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Godikhurd (Kapoo), Police Station Kapoo, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Education Officer Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : 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 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of present case, from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside / quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.2020 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, in accordance with the circular prevailing at the time of death of petitioner’s father. 10.3 That, any other relief / order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.02 18:37:37 +0530 2 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Upper Division Teacher under respondent respondent No.1 and died in harness on 12.12.2011 and at that time petitioner was minor. After attaining the age of majority, she applied for compassionate appointment on 20.08.2014 before respondent authorities. When no decision was taken, WPS No. 2782 of 2020 was filed and a direction was issued to respondent No. 3 to decide the application dated 20.08.2014 for compassionate appointment after verification of the fact about age of the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 rejected the application vide order dated 26.10.2020 on the ground that mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Jereldina Toppo is already in government service. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Upper Division Teacher under the respondent authorities, who died in harness on 12.12.2011. He would further submit that the petitioner moved application dated 20.08.2014 for compassionate appointment and same has been rejected on 26.10.2020 on the ground that one of the member is already in the service i.e. mother of the petitioner. He would contend that there was separate cause of action after death of father of the petitioner, therefore, respondent No.3 ought to have considered the application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He would pray to quash the order dated 26.10.2020. 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 3 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. 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 mother of the petitioner is already in government service and thus, one of the member of the family is already in service, therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly rejected the application for grant of compassionate appointment. This petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti