1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7454 of 2023 1 - Murarilal Raxel S/o Ramesh Raxel Aged About 35 Years R/o Bahtarai Atal Nivas Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Municipal Corporation, Through Comissioner Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 29.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.04.30 16:18:43 +0530 2 petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may direct to the respondent authorities for the consideration of application filed by the petitioner and provide job to him in accordance with law. 10.3 Any other relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner’s mother was working as a regular Staff Karamchari in the respondent department/Municipal Corporation Bilaspur. Subsequently she died in harness on 21.10.2020 due to her health issues. The petitioner is a son of the deceased seeking compassionate appointment in the place of her mother and moved an application for the compassionate appointment with all the relevant documents on 22.02.2021. The respondent vide (Annexure P/1) dated 13.09.2023 rejected his application stating that the petitioner’s father is already working as Govt. Employee in the respondent department, therefore he is not entitled for the compassionate appointment. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his father is working as a Government employee in Municipal Corporation, therefore he is not entitled for the compassionate appointment. He would further submit that the petitioner’s father is separately living from the petitioner since long time and the petitioner was dependent on her mother who died in harness on 21.10.2020. 3 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Dubey, would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sonwani. He would submit that according to the policy which is prevailing at present, if any of the members of the deceased employee’s family is/are in Government Service, the claim of the other member of the family will not be considered for compassionate appointment. Mr Dubey has placed reliance on State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Umesh Thakur, passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 236/2022 delivered on 21.06.2023. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the mother of the petitioner died on 21.10.2020; and the father of petitioner is working as a Government employee in Municipal Corporation at the time of the death of the deceased employee. 7. From the pleadings of the writ petition, it is quite vivid that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 13.09.2021 on the ground that one of the family member i.e. his father is already in government service, in light of the circular dated 29.08.2016, where it is provided that if one of the members of the family is in government service, the claim of the dependent for compassionate appointment shall not be considered. 8. According to the circular dated 29.08.2016, issued by General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh it has provided that if one of the members of the family is in government 4 service, the claim of the dependent for compassionate appointment shall not be considered. 9. Taking into consideration above-discussed facts and in view of the judgment passed by this Court in State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Umesh Thakur (supra), the authority concerned has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib