2025:CGHC:48540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10716 of 2025 1 - Shourya Chandrakar S/o Late Rajesh Chandrakar, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kachandur, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief, Public Works Department, North Block Sector-19, Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Durg Division, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.) 6 - Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 22/09 /2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing memo dated dated 02.06.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 by which the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the count that his father is in government service, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment as per clause 6(A) of the Policy, 2013 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for grant of compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment as his ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.22 19:10:12 +0530 mother who was working on the post of Sub-Engineer and posted at Public Works Department, Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.) expired on 25.09.2022. He would further submit that his father is working as Teacher in the School Education Department but his mother was living separately with his father and she was fully dependent on income of his mother, therefore, rejecting his claim for grant of compassionate appointment on the count that his father is in government service, is bad in law and would pray for setting aside the memo dated 02.06.2025. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner’s parents may be living separately but the same does not mean that the relationship between his mother and father were come to an end, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 5. Clause 6(A) of the Policy, 2013 provides that to grant compassionate, it is necessary that no family member of the deceased employee should be in government service. In the present case, petitioner’s father is in government service and presently working as Teacher and was living separately with petitioner’s mother but the same does not mean that petitioner’s father does not fall within ambit of family member, In the Policy, 2013, there is no such clause which provides that if mother and father were in government service and living separately then after death of deceased employee, the name of the dependent should be considered for grant of compassionate appointment. 6. 6. From bare perusal of the Policy, the object of the clause is that if a family member is earning member, then the family which has suffered sudden economical crises on account of unfortunate death of family member, can be compensated by earnings of other family member, so that the family of a deceased government servant may overcome with the financial crunch, as such, restriction to give compassionate appointment has been imposed. This is in conformity with the object behind for grant of compassionate appointment. 7. Now coming to the present facts of the case, petitioner's father is in government service and working as Teacher, even though as per contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s mother was living separately, this will not entitle the petitioner to get rid of the rider provided in the clause 6(A) of the policy, therefore, memo dated 02.06.2025 does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. The said issue whether one of the family member is in government job, then dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to get compassionate appointment or not, has been examined by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey & another1, wherein it has been held at paragraph 8 & 9 as under:- “8. The relevant scheme for compassionate appointment is contained in Consolidated Revised Instructions on Compassionate Appointment, 2013( for short, ‘Scheme’). In WA No. 33 of 2022 decided on 18.02.2022 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee), this Court analyzed the provisions contained under Clauses 5 and 6A of the Scheme and recorded as follows at paragraphs 15 & 16 : 1 Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (decided on 23.02.2022) “15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would goto show that it does not envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 16. Explanation to clause 6A does not in any way relate to family of the deceased married government servant. What is the relevance of the explanation is also not discernible inasmuch as when the scheme had excluded dependent parents for being considered for compassionate appointment, there is no purpose in describing who are the dependents of the deceased married government servant.” 9. Since another son of the deceased employee is already in government service, such son, who is in the government employment,would come within the meaning of a family of the deceased employee.” 9. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kevra Bai Markandey (Supra) and the petitioner’s father is in government service, order of rejection of application for compassionate appointment is affirmed and the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun