1 2025:CGHC:55018-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 817 of 2025 Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Baburai Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Street No. 5 Girija Niwas, Kasarihdih Dist- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Deputy Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, 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 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.11.2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.13 10:27:46 +0530 2 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 2091 of 2022, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The present Writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed before this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.S. No. 2091 of 2022 and may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent department to consider the application of appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case as projected by writ petitioner in WPS No. 2091 of 2022, are that brother of the appellant, namely, Pramod Sahu was selected to the post of Patwari vide order dated 16.10.2019 and thereafter, he was sent for training of a period of one year. During the training period, he died on 21.04.2021 due to Covid-19 pandemic. On 18.05.2021, petitioner moved application for grant of compassionate appointment and same has been rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 22.07.2021 on the ground that the deceased was not a government servant. 3 4. After hearing the parties the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition and observed thus at paras 7 & 8. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein under :- “XXX 7. The Clause 3 of the Circular regarding compassionate appointment issued by State of Chhattisgarh dated 14.06.2013 defines “deceased government servant”, and it includes regular government servant working under regular / contingency / work-charged establishment who died untimely during his service period. 8. Thus, it is quit clear that only the dependents of regular government servants are entitled to get compassionate appointment. In the present case, brother of the petitioner was not a government servant as he was only selected to the post of Patwari and no appointment order was issued in his favor and he died during the currency of training period, therefore in the opinion of this Court, brother of the petitioner does not fall under the definition of “government servant”, thus respondent authorities rightly rejected the claim of petitioner and no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby 4 dismissed. No order as to cost(s).” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the brother of the appellant after clearing the written exam was selected as trainee Patwari vide order dated 16.10.2019 and thereafter, he was sent for training for a period of one year, therefore his status was of a government servant and respondent authorities ought to have considered the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He prays to direct the respondent authorities to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner. Thus, the present appeal be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that brother of appellant was only a trainee Patwari and has not cleared the final examination to be appointed as Patwari and neither appointment order was issued in his favor, thus he would not fall within the definition of “government servant” . He further submits that respondent authorities rightly rejected the application moved by the appellant and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the appeal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is evident that the 5 brother of the appellant was only selected as trainee Patwari and was undergoing training; no formal order of appointment had been issued in his favour. Therefore, he did not acquire the status of a “Government servant” within the meaning of Clause 3 of the Circular dated 14.06.2013 governing compassionate appointments. As such, the appellant cannot claim any right for compassionate appointment on that basis. The learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts and law while dismissing the writ petition. 9. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. Considering the same, this Court finds no ground to entertain the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti