1 2025:CGHC:38515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7504 of 2025 1 - Rakesh Kashyap S/o Late Prabhuram Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o Rogadihi (Vishrampuri), Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur C.G. 3 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, District Korba C.G. 4 - Reserve Inspector (Rakshit Nirishak) Korba, District Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.05 20:11:38 +0530 2 “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned rejection order dated: 28.10.2024 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Korba (C.G.) 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to re-consider the application for grant of compassionate appointment on an eligible post. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, namely, Prabhuram Kashyap, who was the Police Sub- Inspector, has died in harness on 24.08.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner made his application for grant of compassionate appointment to the department on 20.09.2023, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the two married daughters of the deceased employee is already in government service and as per the policy dated 15.04.2024 issued by the State Government, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the two daughters of the deceased employee was already married and they cannot come under the definition of family members, as they have already married prior to the death of the deceased employee and the bar created under the said notification dated 15.04.2024 is not 3 applicable to the present petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose and has submitted that the issue has already been set at rest by the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 478 of 2024. Therefore, the order passed by the Respondent No.3 is justified and the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. He would further submit that the policy of the State Government does not differentiate the married or unmarried daughters of the deceased employee and it only provided that the family member, who is in government service prior to the filing of the application or after filing of the application for grant of compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the two daughters of the deceased employee are in government service, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the two daughters of the deceased employee is in government service. The State Government has issued the Notification No. F 7-1/2019/1-3, Nawa Raipur, dated 15.04.2024 and clause 2.7 of the said Notification dated 15.04.2024 provided that, if any member of the family is already in government service, no other member of the family is entitled for compassionate appointment. 4 Clause 2.7 of the said Notification No. 15.04.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “2.7 दिवंगत शासकीय सेवक के परिवा में यदि पूव से ही परिवा का कोई अन्य सस्य के (चाहे वह अदिववादिहत हो अथवा दिववादिहत) शासकीय सेवा में है, तो दि !श के दि"न्ु पंतुक 6(अ) अ ुसा परिवा के अन्य दिकसी भी सस्य को अ ुकम्पा दि युदि& की पात्रता हीं होगी। सा.प्र.दिव के परिपत्र क्रमांक एफ 7-1/2012/1-3, दि ांक 30.08.2018 में आश्रि0त सस्यों के सं"ंध में स्पष्टीकण दिया गया है।” 7. Hon’ble the Division Bench of this Court has considered the issue in Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022 and has held as under:- “4. A careful perusal of the order passed by the full Bench would show that the full Bench of this Court has clearly held that no such inquiry can be made qua the dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased who has made the application for compassionate appointment. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain and accordingly, set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent herein would stand dismissed.” 8. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Full Bench of this Court and the Full Bench vide order dated 21.06.2023 has passed the following order which is as under:- “15. In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra), Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) and the reference answered 5 by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha (supra) answering the issue involved in this reference and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Parkash Chand’s case (supra) and Nitin's case (supra), compassionate appointment has to be granted in accordance with the policy applicable and where the policy applicable for compassionate appointment clearly indicates that where one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service then other members of the family of the deceased Government servant would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, then the writ court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct to hold for enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family members of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by another member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rewording/revising the terms of the applicable policy for compassionate appointment, which, in our considered opinion, is wholly impermissible in law. Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated question as under:- When one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other 6 dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing/rewording of the terms of the applicable scheme/policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred.” 9. Further, the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been settled by the order dated 31.07.2024, passed in WA No. 478 of 2024 (Chandrakant Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), and therefore, I do not find any scope of interference in the present writ petition to direct the authorities to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved