1 2025:CGHC:19017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6675 of 2017 1 - Shankar Karosiya S/o Late Shri Kalika Prasad Karosiya, Aged About 29 Years R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Through The Commissioner, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Shukla, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i. To kindly direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. ii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely, Kalika Prasad Karosiya was working on the post of Assistant Grade-III under respondent No.2/Corporation.He passed away on 08.05.2010 in harness. The petitioner being dependent upon the earnings of the deceased, moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities. Respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide order dated 12.12.2011 on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is in government service. 3. Mr. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an application moved by the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is already in Government service. He would further submit that the order passed by respondent No.2 is illegal and arbitrary, therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have conducted an inquiry, ascertaining the dependency part. He would also submit that the order passed by respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dixit. They would submit that according to the Policy of the compassionate appointment, there is a specific clause that if any 3 of the members of the deceased employee is in Government service, the dependent would not be entitled to get the compassionate appointment. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 236 of 2022 parties being State of Chhattisgarh and Others Vs. Umesh Thakur decided on 07.07.2023, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench in paras- 3 and 4 held as under:- “3. The larger Bench / full Bench of this Court by its order dated 21.06.2023 has answered the reference 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 he 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 applicable scheme / policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred.” 4. A careful perusal of the order passed by the full Bench would show that the full Bench of this Court has clearly held that no such inquiry can be made qua the dependency / -4- financial support by one of the family members of the deceased who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased who has made the application for compassionate appointment. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain and accordingly, set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent herein would stand dismissed.” 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. From a perusal of the documents and reasons assigned by the State authorities, it is quite vivid that one of the family members of the petitioner is already in Government service and there is a specific clause in the Policy of the compassionate appointment that if any of the members of the deceased employee is in Government service, the dependent would not be entitled to get compassionate appointment. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by respondent No. 2. 8. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha