1 2025:CGHC:13933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7178 of 2018 1 - Smt. Roshni Sengar W/o Chandrabhan Singh Sengar Aged About 42 Years R/o- Village And Post Kurud (Bhatapara), Ward No. 14, P.S. Jamul, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Inspector General (Adm) Police Headquarter, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. R.S.Baghel, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the basis of circular dated 14.06.2013 and set-aside the order dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure P-1). REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3 Cost of the petition.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner namely the late Bharat Singh Rajput was a Head Constable in the Police Department and he died in harness on 13.12.2011. The deceased left behind his widow and two daughters. The petitioner is a younger one. She moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment on 10.11.2014 and it was rejected on the ground that she happens to be the married daughter of the deceased. Thereafter, she preferred WPS No.3575 of 2017 assailing the order dated 27.03.2015 and a direction was issued to decide the application afresh in the light of the judgment passed in the matter of Smt. Sarojni Bhoi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No.296 of 2014. The petitioner moved a second application for grant of compassionate appointment and same has been rejected vide order dated 24.01.2018 on the ground that her elder married sister is already in service. 3. Ms. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities and the same has been rejected on the ground that married daughters are not entitled to compassionate appointment. She would further submit that thereafter the petitioner preferred WPS No.3575 of 2017 which was disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Ms. 3 Sharma would contend that the elder sister of the petitioner was appointed in the Government service in the year 2005 prior to the death of her father and it cannot be a ground for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. She would further contend that in the year 2005, in the Policy of the compassionate appointment, there was no such condition. She would state that the bar was inserted through amendment in the Policy for compassionate appointment later on. She would further state that the petitioner has to take care of her mother whereas her elder sister never helps the petitioner and her mother. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.4 dated 24.01.2018 is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the Policy and therefore, liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that on the date of the death of the father of the petitioner i.e. 13.12.2011, the policy for compassionate appointment dated 10.06.2003 was in force and according to clause No.8 of the policy, the petitioner was not found eligible for appointment. He would further submit that according to that clause, if any of the family members of the deceased is in service, the dependents would not be entitled to get Government job. He would contend that admittedly, the elder sister of the petitioner is in service, therefore, respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police, Durg rightly rejected the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 4 placed on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the elder sister of the petitioner is in service and this fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and according to the Policy dated 10.06.2003, if one of the family members is in service, the dependent would not be entitled to get a government job. 7. Initially, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased but later on, the application of the petitioner was reconsidered and the same was rejected on a new ground and the same is in consonance with the Policy of compassionate appointment dated 10.06.2003. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.4 dated 24.01.2018. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha