1 2025:CGHC:33689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6276 of 2018 * - Tikesh Governa S/o S/o Late M. L. Governa Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Korar, Post Kanker, Thana Korar, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer Kanker District Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Block Education Officer Block Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the memo/letter dated 04.10.2017 passed by respondent no. 3 and direct the respondent concerned to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, within stipulated period. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit. 2. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner was Gazetted Class-II employee who was posted to the post of Head Master, Middle School who died in harness on 03.08.2017. He would submit that an application for grant Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.21 18:03:59 +0530 2 of compassionate appointment was moved and it was rejected by the Block Education Officer, Kanker vide order dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure- P/1) on the ground that a member of the family is already in government service. He would argue that as the father of the petitioner was Gazetted Class-II Officer, therefore, application for grant of compassionate appointment ought to have been decided by the Superior Authorities and therefore, order Annexure- P/1 dated 04.10.2017 is bad-in-law. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Lav Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. 4. According to the policy for compassionate appointment, a member of the deceased-government servant family may be provided, to the Class-III or Class-IV post. The father of the petitioner was working on the post of Head Master which is Class-II post according to the circular dated 11.06.2008. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that one member of the deceased-government servant is already in the government service, therefore, according to the policy, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. 5. As the petitioner has challenged the order impugned on technical grounds, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the Block Education Officer, Kanker, otherwise the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 6. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti