1 2025:CGHC:47681-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 666 of 2025 1 - Ku. Bharti Sonekar D/o Late Ashok Sonekar Aged About 30 Years R/o Qtr. No. 1/25, University Colony, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Amanaka, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Dept. Of Higher Education, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Through Registrar G.E. Road, Amanaka, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Sudeep Johri, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:50:28 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.09.2025 1. Heard Shri Sudeep Johri, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition WPS No. 2534/2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned Writ Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the appellant/writ petitioner was working on the post of Lower Division Clerk under respondent No.2 and died in harness on 23.02.2013. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 06.05.2013 before respondent No.2. She moved another application on 15.10.2015. When no decision was taken, WPS No.4747 of 2020 was filed and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to decide claim of the petitioner expeditiously. Respondent No.2 rejected the application vide order dated 22.01.2021 on the ground that 3 Pramod Sonekar, son of the deceased was granted compassionate appointment in the year 2018. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “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 Pramod Sonekar, brother of the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on account of death of his mother and thus, one of the member of the family is already in service, therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application for grant of compassionate appointment. This petition fails and is hereby dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the material facts of the case inasmuch as the first mother of the appellant, 4 late Smt. Lata Sonekar, who was working as an Upper Division Clerk under respondent no.2, had expired and thereafter her nominee, namely the step-brother of the appellant, Pramod Kumar Sonekar, was granted compassionate appointment. However, after the demise of the appellant’s father, compassionate appointment has been illegally denied to the appellant on the ground that one appointment had already been given to the son of deceased Ashok Sonekar in 2018, without considering that the earlier appointment was granted to the nominee of late Smt. Lata Sonekar (first mother) and not against the death of the father. It is urged that the documents pertaining to such appointment were neither considered nor discussed in the impugned order. It is further submitted that Clause 6(a) of the policy for compassionate appointment (Annexure P-7), which disentitles a family member on the ground that one appointment has already been given, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it cannot disentitle children born out of the second marriage of a deceased employee from consideration. It is further contended that the policy itself is unconstitutional to the extent that it discriminates among the children of a deceased 5 employee by recognizing the rights of some as legitimate while denying others merely on the ground of descent. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ 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 one of the family members of the petitioner is already in the service, therefore the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Since the order passed by the learned Single Judge on correct appreciation of facts and law, it does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 6 8. On a bare perusal of Clause 6(a) of the Policy for Compassionate Appointment, it is clear that where one of the members of the family is already in government service, no other member of the family would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is not in dispute that Pramod Sonekar, the step-brother of the appellant, was granted compassionate appointment on account of the death of his mother, late Smt. Lata Sonekar, and is continuing in service. 9. In view of the said policy stipulation, the appellant cannot claim a further right of compassionate appointment on account of the subsequent death of her father. Thus, on due consideration, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly applied Clause 6(a) of the policy while rejecting the writ petition, and we see no error or perversity in the finding so recorded so as to warrant interference in this appeal. 10. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 7 11. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib