1 2025:CGHC:37077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6383 of 2021 * - Shyam Lal Joshi S/o Late Shri Khoman Singh Joshi Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kandul, Tahsil Arjunda, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/07/2025 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 Annexure P-5 and direct the respondent no. 2 to consider and grant appointment as per judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.S. No. 407/2021 within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner namely Khoman Singh Joshi was working on the post of Lower Division Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Bhardakala, Block and Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod and died in Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.05 10:51:56 +0530 2 harness on 24.05.2021. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 09.06.2021 before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 rejected the application vide order dated 16.06.2021 on the ground that Ramlal Joshi and Tameshwar Joshi (son of the deceased and brothers of petitioner) are already in government service. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Upper Division Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Bhardakala, Block and Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, who died in harness on 24.05.2021 and thereafter, an application for compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner and same has been rejected on the ground that sons of the deceased family are already in government service. He would contend that there was separate cause of action after death of father of the petitioner, therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have considered the application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He would pray to quash the order dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure P-5). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He would submit that the Policy for compassionate appointment issued by the State Government applies with the University. He would further submit that according to Clause 6(a) of the Policy, if any of the family member of the deceased is in public service, any other member would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. He would contend that the family members of the petitioner are already in government service, 3 therefore, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. He would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. According to Clause 6(a) of the Policy for the compassionate appointment, if one of the member of the family is in government service, any other members would not be entitled for the compassionate appointment. It is not in dispute that the brothers of the petitioner namely Ramlal Joshi and Tameshwar Joshi are already in government service and thus, the members of the family are already in government service, therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application for grant of compassionate appointment. This petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti