1 2025:CGHC:43903 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 614 of 2020 1 - Bharti Thakur D/o Buddhuram Thakur Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Basantpur, Infront Of Salim Aara Machine, Rajnandaon District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director And Superintendent, Government Medical College Cum Hospital, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.09.01 16:57:39 +0530 2 Order on Board 29/08/2025 1. Heard. 2. This petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking following relief(s): “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 5/9/18 (Annexure P-6) and also direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the present petitioner in the interest of justice and for the proper adjudication of the case. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the selection process for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to grant the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submits that younger sister Late Jyoti Thakur of petitioner was working as Staff Nurse in Government Medical Hospital, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon since 2012. She died in harness on 26.12.2017. She was unmarried, therefore, petitioner has filed application for compassionate appointment on 23.01.2018, but the same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P/6) as per Clause 6 of Consolidated Instruction, 2013 for grant of compassionate appointment as father of the petitioner is already 3 in government service. He further submits that though father of the petitioner is in government service, but petitioner is residing separately from his father, therefore, petitioner ought to have been granted compassionate appointment on the ground of death of his younger sister, hence, he prayed that impugned order dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P/6) be set-aside and relief sought for by the petitioner may be granted. 4. Respondent - State has filed its reply. Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submits that as per Clause 6(A) of the Consolidated Instruction, 2013 for grant of compassionate appointment, if any family member of deceased employee is in government job, then other family members of the deceased employee shall not be eligible for grant of compassionate appointment. He further submits that this issue has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Umesh Thakur in WA No.236/2022. Hence this instant petition is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the material available on record. 6. As per Clause 6 of Consolidated Instruction, 2013 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh for grant of compassionate appointment, if any family member of the deceased employee is in government service, then other family members shall not be entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. 4 7. In the case of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Umesh Thakur (supra) Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court has settled this issue and held that if any member of the family is in Government service, then other family members of deceased employee are not eligible for compassionate appointment. In the instant case, undisputedly, father of the petitioner is in Government service posted as Assistant Grade – II, O/o. Excise Officer, Balod, District Balod. Therefore, in view of Clause 6 of Consolidated Instruction, 2013 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh for grant of compassionate appointment and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court, petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. 8. In view of above discussion, there is no illegality or infirmity found in impugned order dated 05.09.2018 passed by respondent authorities denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner, hence, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi