1 2025:CGHC:49936 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2254 of 2022 1 - Smt Kanti Yadav W/o Late Shri Dhannu Lal Yadav Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Veer Sarvarkar Nagar, Atari, Raipur, Police Station Kabir Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jaikishan Yadav S/o Late Shri Dhannu Lal Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Veer Sarvarkar Nagar, Atari, Raipur, Police Station Kabir Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police (Administration) Police Headquarter, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Assistant Inspector General Of Police (Welfare) Police Headquarter Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Additional Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) 2 Order on Board 07/10/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s):- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus thereby setting aside the orders dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.3 and 26.10.2021 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent no.4 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh within stipulated time, in the ends of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner, including cost. 2. The fact of the case in brief is that this petition is filed to challenge the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3, in compliance with the order dated 06.08.2021 issued by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.S. No. 4058/2021, rejected the Petitioner’s claim for a compassionate appointment. The rejection was based on two grounds: (I) The department cannot be concerned if the deceased employee's son, currently in government service, is not financially supporting the family; and (ii) Under Clause 6(a) of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, if any member of the deceased employee’s family is already in government service, no other member of that family shall be entitled to a compassionate appointment. The Order dated 25.10.2021 was subsequently forwarded to Respondent No. 4 for necessary action. Respondent No. 4, in turn, issued an Order dated 26.10.2021, stating that since a direction had been issued by the Police Headquarters vide the Order dated 25.10.2021, it was not possible to grant compassionate appointment to Petitioner No. 2. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners’ husband and father Late Dhannu Lal, was employed as Head constable in District Mahasamund under the respondents and died in harness on 13.10.2020. He further submits that the petitioners are the wife and son of Late Dhannu Lal 3 and were wholly dependent upon the deceased. He submits that the present petitioner No.2 is now seeking compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father while in service. He further submits that despite the petitioner's eligibility and circumstances, his case was never considered by the respondent authorities. It is therefore prayed that appropriate relief may be granted in favour of the petitioners by directing consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners’ application for compassionate appointment was duly considered. However, as the petitioner No.1 younger son is already in Government service, and in view of the prevailing policy of the State Government governing compassionate appointments, which does not permit such appointment in cases where a family member of the deceased/ employee is already in Government service and therefore, application of the petitioners was rejected. This decision was duly communicated to the petitioners vide Annexure P-2. Therefore, in view of the existing policy, no compassionate appointment can be granted, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The law governing compassionate appointment is well settled. It is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and cannot be granted dehors the provisions contained in the compassionate appointment policy framed by the State Government. The father of the petitioner No.2 died in the year 2020, and at that time, policy of compassionate appointment dated 29.08.2016 and 23.02.2019 issued by the State Government, was in force and as per Clause 6(A) & 8 of the said policy, if any family member of the deceased 4 Government employee is already in Government service, no other family member shall be entitled to compassionate appointment. In view of this provision, the petitioner No.2 would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, as his younger brother has already employed in Government service. 7. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with a similar issue in Writ Appeal No. 91/2022, vide order dated 23.02.2022, has observed in paragraph 9 as under:- “Since another son of the deceased employee is already in government service, such son, who is in the government employment, would come within the meaning of a family of the deceased employee.” 8. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement and the provisions of the prevailing compassionate appointment policy, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.10.08 12:50:28 +0530