1 2025:CGHC:57405-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 864 of 2025 Gautam Bhagat S/o Late Dileshwar Ram Bhagat Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Upar Gamhariya, P.O. Bagiha, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home A,airs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police Sarguja Range, District - Sarguja (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police And Senior Superintendent Of Police District- Jashpur (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.26 17:38:55 +0530 2 5 - Superintendent Of Police District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26.11.2025 1. Heard Shri Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant Also heard Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.8048/2025 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 writ Court. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner, namely Dileshwar Ram Bhagat, working as Constable No. 173, 3 with the respondent department, died in harness on 06-04-2022. On the date of death, his daughter Ku. Gulshan Bhagat was already in service as a Sta, Nurse and posted at District Hospital, Jashpur, and she is in service since 2019. On account of the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 06-05-2022; however, vide order dated 22-08-2022, his application has been rejected on the ground that the daughter of the deceased is in government employment and under the policy, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Another application for compassionate appointment has also been rejected on 18-01- 2023 on the same ground that the daughter of the deceased employee is in government employment. The repeated applications of the petitioner were again rejected vide orders dated 15-09-2023 and 30-08-2024. 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:- “xxx xxx xxx 9. Recently, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in "Yash Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Others", Writ Appeal No. 842/2024, order dated 12-12- 2024, has a*rmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in which the claim for compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that one of the family members is already in government employment. The relevant para is quoted herein below: "13. Learned Single Judge further held that it is not in dispute that the mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi as such, it cannot be said that deceased employees died in harness entitled the appellant to get compassionate appointment. Even the retiral dues of the Government Servant along with emoluments earned by the family members of the Shiksha Karmi who are now government servant cannot be said to be insufficient to fall the appellant within the ambit of sudden financial crisis or penury. The financial crisis or penury is basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government regarding grant of compassionate appointment. As such, the action of the respondents authorities in canceling the appointment or not issuing appointment order 5 to the appellant on compassionate ground is justified on the count that mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi who is not government servant still he is in gainful employment and it cannot be held that appellant is having sudden financial or pecuniary crisis, as such, the order of cancellation of appointment is legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity. 14. 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed." 10. In the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh and Others v. Umesh Thakur", W.A. No. 236/2022, decided on 21-06- 2023, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court has considered that:- 6 "15. In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra), Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) and the reference answered by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha (supra) answering the issue involved in this reference and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Parkash Chand's case (supra) and Nitin's case (supra), compassionate appointment has to be granted in accordance with the policy applicable and where the policy applicable for compassionate appointment clearly indicates that where one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service then other members of the family of the deceased Government servant would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, then the writ court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct to hold for enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family members of the deceased Government 7 servant when a claim is made by another member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rewording / revising the terms of the applicable policy for compassionate appointment, which, in our considered opinion, is wholly impermissible in law. Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated question as under: - When one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing/rewording of the terms of the 8 applicable scheme/policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred." 11. Thus, applying the same analogy to the facts of the present case, since the daughter of the deceased employee is already in government employment, as per the policy of compassionate appointment of the State Government, the petitioner cannot be given a compassionate appointment. The policy of the State Government has been affirmed by learned Single Judge of this Court in said writ appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment, and his application for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondent department. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. ” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the rejection of the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment is arbitrary and contrary to the factual matrix, as the deceased employee had Dxed the marriage of his daughter and performed her engagement during his lifetime, but died suddenly on 06.04.2022, leaving the appellant and his mother in Dnancial distress. It is urged that the appellant complied with all required formalities and that his married sister, though employed, is 9 living separately with her in-laws and is not taking care of the appellant or their mother, and therefore cannot be treated as a dependent. The appellant possesses the requisite qualiDcations, and he and his mother are the only dependents with no other source of income. The judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case, and the appellant reserves the right to raise additional grounds during the course of arguments. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the daughter of the deceased employee is already in government employment, the petitioner’s candidature has been rightly rejected in terms of the prevailing policy on compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that, in the absence of any challenge to the said policy, the decision of the respondent authorities cannot be termed illegal or unsustainable, and the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated these aspects and passed a proper and justiDed order. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 10 8. It is an undisputed fact that the father of the petitioner, Late Dileshwar Ram Bhagat, was a Constable with the respondent department and died in harness on 06.04.2022, and that his daughter, Ku. Gulshan Bhagat, was already in government service as a Sta, Nurse since 2019. It is also undisputed that the petitioner and his mother are the only other dependents of the deceased and that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualiDcations for compassionate appointment. The petitioner’s multiple applications for compassionate appointment were rejected by the respondent authorities in accordance with the prevailing policy, on the ground that a family member is already in government service. 9. Having considered the submissions and the record, we Dnd no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in Yash Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, W.A. No. 842/2024, and the Full Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Umesh Thakur, W.A. No. 236/2022, which clearly hold that when one member of the deceased employee’s family is already in government service, the claim for compassionate appointment by another dependent is barred under the applicable policy. In view of these binding precedents, 11 the rejection of the appellant’s claim is in accordance with law and calls for no interference. 10. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge su,ers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we Dnd that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 11. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib