1 2025:CGHC:45739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6756 of 2021  Rahul Kumar Devdas S/o Late Shri Gorelal Devdas Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Near Sai Mandir Shankar Nagar Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Additional Director General Of Police (Administrative) Police Headquarter, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Superintendent Of Police Durg, Distict- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None, even in two rounds. For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08. 09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 28.10.2021 and letter dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that his mother, namely, Manjulata Devdas is already in Government service. The rejection was based on the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2013, issued by the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh. 2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication are as follows:- SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.10 18:10:05 +0530 2 3. The petitioner’s father, Late Shri Gorelal Devdas, was working as a Assistant Sub-Inspector (M.T.) at 1st Batallion, C.G. Armed Force Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. Unfortunately, he passed away during Covid-19 outburst on 10.09.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment along with relevant documents. 4. The said application was considered by Director General of Police and the compassionate appointment was offered to the petitioner on the post of Constable G.D. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 02.06.2021 seeking change of post as he is physically challenged person. During scrutiny of documents, it was found that his mother, namely, Manjulata Devdas is already in government service; therefore, respondent No. 3 rejected the application for grant of compassionate appointment vide order dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure P/6) on the ground that, according to the Clause 6 A of Compassionate Appointment Policy inserted on 29.08.2016, if one of the family members is already in government service, the other dependents of the deceased servant would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, WPS No. 4149 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner and a direction was issued to respondent authorities to take appropriate decision within a period of 90 days. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 28.10.2021 and it was communicated to the petitioner on 08.11.2021, against said order this petition has been filed. 5. Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities in accordance with the prevailing policy of the State Government. He would further submit that the circular dated 29.08.2016 inserted to the consolidated policy dated 14.06.2013, calrifies that if there is already an earning member in the family 3 of the deceased government servant, the other family members would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 6. Perusal of the order impugned would make it clear that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 in accordance with the prevailing policy for compassionate appointment. After the death of the petitioner’s father, he submitted an application for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, respondent No. 2, in light of the clause 6 A of Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2013, rejected the application moved by the petitioner and held that wife of Late Shri Gorelal Devdas is already in service on the post of Assistant Teacher. 7. The clause 6 (A) of Policy, 2013 is reproduced herein-below :- "6 (अ) दिवंगत विवंवं वि त शा सकीय सवंकी की परिवं में यदि पवं स परिवं की कीई अन्य सस्य शा सकीय सवं में , त परिवं की अन्य विकीस भी सस्य की अनु कीम्पा विनुय क्ति#त की प त्रत नु % ग।" 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner is already in government service; therefore, according to clause 6A of the policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. 9. In light of the above-discussion, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 28.10.2021 and letter dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant