1 2025:CGHC:9545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 600 of 2021  Vikash Sonkar S/o Late Shri Ashok Aonkar Aged About 29 Years R/o Namnakala, Khatik Para, Mangal Pandey Ward No. 13, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus  The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Rajgir, Advocate For Respondent : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 25.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure - P/1) by which the Municipal Corporation Ambikapur has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the count that the petitioner’s brother Avinash Sonkar is in Government service and posted as Constable in 8th Batalian. MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.03.21 18:23:56 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father late shri Ashok Sonkar who was working in the Municipal Corporation Ambikapur in the Fire Department on the post of Peon expired on 24.12.2018, therefore, he moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioner has also annexed the mark sheets of class 10th, 12th and Bachelor of Computer Application (L.E.). The said matter was examined by the respondent on 30.07.2019 and by the impugned order (Annexure - P/1) has rejected the same. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation and learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner’s brother is in Government service and posted as Constable in 8th Batalian, therefore, he is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment in terms of the Policy of State Government dated 29.08.2016 and thus, they would submit that the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter has to be enquired whether his brother is in Government service or not, thus he would submit that let the enquiry be started. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The issue whether one of the family members is in Government service then the petitioner is not entitled to get the compassionate appointment is a matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that to ascertain whether the claimant is dependent upon the other 3 family members who are in Government service, no enquiry is required and it has also been held that if one of the family members is in Government service, other dependent of legal heirs of deceased Government servant is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. 7. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Kevra Bai Markandey & Another [Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (decided on 23.02.2022)] reported in 2022:CGHC:4305-DB has held in paragraph as under:- “8. The relevant scheme for compassionate appointment is contained in Consolidated Revised Instructions on Compassionate Appointment, 2013 (for short, ‘Scheme’). In WA No. 33 of 2022 decided on 18.02.2022 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee), this Court analyzed the provisions contained under Clauses 5 and 6A of the Scheme and recorded as follows at paragraphs 15 & 16: “15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would go to show that it does not envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 16. Explanation to clause 6A does not in any way relate to family of the deceased married government servant. What is the relevance of the explanation is also not discernible inasmuch as when the scheme had excluded dependent parents for being considered for compassionate appointment, there is no purpose in describing who are the dependents of the deceased 4 married government servant.” 9. Since another son of the deceased employee is already in government service, such son, who is in the government employment, would come within the meaning of a family of the deceased employee.” 8. Considering this aspect of the matter and also considering the well settled position of law, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 (Annnexure - P/1) is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish