1 2025:CGHC:45997 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6866 of 2021  Sachin Beck S/o Late Ignesh Beck Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bishunpur (Gadhapara), Tahsil And P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Economics And Autistics Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Directorate, Economics And Autistics Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy Director Directorate, Economics And Autistics Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09. 09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 17.01.2019 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that wife of the deceased employee, namely, Elizabeth 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.10 14:03:16 +0530 2 Late Shri Ignesh Beck, was working as a Assistant Director in the office of respondent authorities. Unfortunately, he died on harness on 29.07.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment along with relevant documents. He would further submit that respondent No. 3 rejected the application for grant of compassionate appointment vide order dated 17.01.2019(Annexure P/1) 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. He would also submit that the petitioner was totally dependent on his father and and his mother is residing separately. He would contend that respondent No. 3 without proper scrutiny passed impugned order. He would pray to quash the order dated 17.01.2019(Annexure P/1). 3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, 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, clarifies that if there is already an earning member in the family of the deceased government servant, the other family members would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Perusal of the order impugned would make it clear that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the 3 respondent No. 3 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. 3, 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 Ignesh Beck is already in government service. 6. 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।" 7. 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. 8. In light of the above-discussion, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 17.01.2019 (Annexure P/1) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 9. 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