1 2025:CGHC:28326-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 410 of 2025 A. Neelkaant Naidu S/o Late Shri A. Ganesh Naidu Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Uslapur Bridge, Back Side Of Mausaji White House, Anand Nagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s) versus 1 Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar General, Chhattisgarh High Court Bodri, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 The Additional Registrar, Chhattisgarh High Court, Bodri, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 Richa Naidu D/o A. Ganesh Naidu Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 400, Ganesh Nag, Sai Vihar Colony, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 : Mr. Shashank Thakur JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.28 12:30:06 +0530 2 & 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.06.2025 1. The appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 4738/ 2022, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that father of the petitioner was working as Peon in the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) and died in harness on 16/06/2010. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 09.02.2022. The said application was rejected by the respondent authorities vide memorandum dated 26/05/2022. The High Court has filed their return and have contended that after carefully considering the application the facts reveal to the respondents are that the petitioner’s father in his nomination form dated 24.01.2002 has mentioned name of his wife Pooja Naidu as first nominee and daughter Richa Naidu as second nominee and in the list of family members he has mentioned Smt. Pooja Naidu 3 as wife, Ku. Geeta Naidu, Ku. Anjali Naidu, Ku. Richa Naidu and A. Neelkant Naidu (the petitioner) and Nephew A. Shreenu Naidu as family members. The wife of the deceased employee Pooja Naidu after birth of her daughter Richa Naidu has undergone TT operation and also had taken the benefit of two increments as evident from the affidavit dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure R/2). At the time of death of Ganesh Naidu, his wife Pooja Naidu was already working in the High Court, therefore, there was no occasion to grant compassionate appointment. Unfortunately, Pooja Naidu also expired during service in the High Court. Therefore, the High Court has granted compassionate appointment to Richa Naidu who was only dependent of the deceased Pooja Naidu. She has already been removed by the High Court. Thus very object of the compassionate appointment has already been exhausted. Thereafter, after 11 years of the death of Ganesh Naidu the present petitioner has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment claiming himself to be son and dependent upon the deceased employee on 09.02.2022. The High Court committee has considered the entire facts and it was revealed that the deceased has no were mentioned that the petitioner to be his son in the latest nomination form. The wife of deceased employee Pooja Naidu had also submitted an affidavit wherein she has mentioned that from her wedlock with Ganesh Naidu only one female child was born and rest of the children are 4 of elder brother of the deceased employee. Therefore, his application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “14 Now coming to the facts of the case and in light of the above legal position, it is quite vivid that deceased employee expired in 2010 and at that time his wife already in government service, therefore, also in light of full Bench decision of this Court in Umesh Thakur (supra) and para 6-A of the policy as amended from time to time, the petitioner’s claim for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Even otherwise, after death of Pooja Naidu, the compassionate appointment has already been granted to one of the family member i.e. Richa Naidu and she has been subsequently removed from services for other reasons. As such, the object of compassionate appointment has already been achieved by granting appointment. As such, the rejection of subsequent application by the petitioner by the High Court cannot be said to suffer from perversity, illegality which warrants interference by this Court. The record of the 5 case would further demonstrate that the petitioner has moved an application before the respondent for grant of compassionate appointment after 11 years of death of A. Ganesh Naidu. On this count alone the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as delay and latches are one of the ground for denying the claim of the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.” 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant reiterating the same plea challenging the order dated 01.05.2025 passed in WPS No. 1738 of 2022 and claiming compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner. He further submits that the deceased employee/ father of the petitioner had two wives namely Reshma Naidu first wife and Pooja Naidu second wife. The deceased had three children including the petitioner from his first wife Reshma Naidu and only one child namely Richa Naidu was born from his second wife Late Pooja. As such, deceased employee was father of all the children.The petitioner has filed rejoinder contending that the compassionate appointment granted to Richa Naidu has been withdrawn and she is not claiming any appointment, even otherwise, second wife is a separate entity and other daughters of the first wife of the deceased employee are not claiming compassionate appointment, therefore, he may be granted benefit 6 of compassionate appointment. Learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner would submit that vide circular dated 14.06.2013, dependent son is entitled for compassionate appointment, therefore, rejection of the compassionate appointment to the petitioner is illegal and against the well settled principles of law. He would further submit that after the death of his father, he is facing lot of financial difficulties in taking care of his family which include his mother and his sister and they have no other source of income. Therefore, he would pray for grant of compassionate appointment and allowing the writ appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the count that he has failed to establish that he is the son of the deceased employee. The deceased employee has nominated his wife and his daughter Richa Naidu as nominee. Only inclusion of petitioner’s name in the list of family does not entitle him for grant of compassionate appointment. She would further submit that the nominee wife Pooja Naidu who was also an employee of the Court had submitted an affidavit on 08.07.2014 stating that only Richa Naidu is their only daughter, rest of the children in the family including the petitioner were children of elder brother of her husband the deceased employee. The said affidavit has been made part of the service record of the late Pooja Naidu. 7 Richa Naudu has been granted compassionate appointment on the demise of Late Pooja Naidu. Therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner which does not warrant any interference by this Court. He would further submit that at the time of death of the deceased employee his wife late Pooja Naidu was in service. As per Clause 6A of the circular and in light of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh and Others vs. Umesh Thakur{WA No. 236/2022 dated 21.06.2023}, if any other member of the family is in Government service, then other family members are not eligible for compassionate appointment. Further the claim for compassionate appointment has been submitted after lapse of 11 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, therefore, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be rejected and does not call for any interference and would pray for dismissing the writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition that deceased employee expired in 2010 and at that time his wife already in government service, therefore, also in light of full Bench 8 decision of this Court in Umesh Thakur (supra) and para 6-A of the policy as amended from time to time, the petitioner’s claim for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Even otherwise, after death of Pooja Naidu, the compassionate appointment has already been granted to one of the family member i.e. Richa Naidu and she has been subsequently removed from services for other reasons. As such, the object of compassionate appointment has already been achieved by granting appointment and further as the petitioner has moved an application before the respondent for grant of compassionate appointment after 11 years of death of A. Ganesh Naidu. On this count alone the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as delay and latches are one of the ground for denying the claim of the petitioner. 8. In view of foregoing, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar