1 2025:CGHC:4181-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 42 of 2025 Girdhari Lal Binjhwar S/o Late Shri Shashi Kumar Binjhwar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dhandhani, Post Sargbundiya, Block Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Block Education Officer T.W.D. Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Head Master Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag, Primary School Nawalpur, Block Office Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.23 16:49:54 +0530 2 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s): “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to allow this writ appeal and set-aside the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by Hon’ble Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (S) No.2377/2016 and to issue direction to the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment at the earliest, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2377 of 2016 (Girdhari Lal Binjhwar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge is that the appellant/writ petitioner was that the petitioner’s father while working as Head Master in Government Primary School, Nawalpur died in harness on 07.12.2010 and at that relevant time, the appellant/writ petitioner was minor and, after attaining majority on 24.07.2014, he filed application for grant of compassionate appointment on 17.07.2015, however, the same was not being decided by the competent authority. Consequently, he filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No. 217/2016, before this Court and this Court 3 vide order dated 21.01.2016 directed the District Education Officer, Korba to take decision on the representation of the appellant/writ petitioner in accordance with law. However, the representation/claim for grant of compassionate appointment was ultimately rejected vide order dated 02.05.2016. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 02.05.2016, a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.2377/2016, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.11.2024. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law as without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by allowing the writ petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the 4 aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order by observing as follows :- “6. In the opinion of this Court, since the petitioner’s father died on 07.12.2010 and the petitioner has been able to survive till date and has maintained the livelihood of his family during the said period, therefore, at this stage, no purpose would be served in granting compassionate appointment. The very object of granting compassionate appointment no longer subsists because the petitioner and his family have been able to survive for such a long period (i.e. from 07.12.2010 till date). 7. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be 5 and is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).” 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu