1 2025:CGHC:60489-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 921 of 2025 Sanjay Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Krishna Kumar Dhruv Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Khadibahar, Ward No. 15, Tahsil Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development, Farmer Welfare And Biotechnology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Veterinary Services, New Raipur District Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Bastar Division, District Bastar, (C.G.) 4 - Collector Narayanpur District Narayanpur (C.G.) 5 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.12.13 11:10:10 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.12.2025 1. The appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 23/09/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.11157/2025, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. In the writ petition, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that he petitioner's father was working as Compounder died in harness on 19.11.2024. After death of his father the petitioner submitted application for grant of compassionate appointment and the same has been rejected by the impugned order relying upon the policy of the Government according to which, if any family member of the deceased is in Government service, the dependent of the deceased Government servant is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. 3. The learned Single judge after considering the entire aspects of the matter, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner observing thus at para 4 and 5: “4. This issue is no more res integra as this issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 334/2021 decided on 10.12.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has held as under:- 3 "16. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only on the basis of scheme applicable for such appointment. When the scheme itself provides that no appointment shall be granted on compassionate ground, if any of the family members is in government service, no appointment can be claimed on the ground that the family member in government service is not giving any financial assistance. No obligation is cast upon the government under the scheme to find out as to whether such employee is providing any financial assistance to the other members of the family." 5. In the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.” 4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's brother who is Government Servant is living separately for the last 15 years. He submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the petitioner as well as his mother Meena Bai i.e. wife of late employee, belongs to Schedule Tribe & living under poverty line 4 and having no sufficient income to maintain his family. Hence, he would pray for allowing the appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the order impugned and submits that according to the policy of the Government, if any of the family member is in government service, no appointment can be made under compassionate ground. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. It is not in dispute that while the father of the deceased was in service, he died in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father. The authorities after considering the application of the petitioner, they found that the brother of the petitioner is already in government service and hence, declined to consider the case of the petitioner. 8. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and by placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. no.334/2021 has rightly observed that if any member of the family is in government service, the compassionate appointment cannot be granted. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ 5 petitioner/appelant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/Amardeep