2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 4687 of 2022 Tarun Anant S/o Late Jagmohan Das Aged About 23 Years R/o House No. 81 A, Ward No. 7 Mohabhatta Road, Behind Rosalin School, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police (Dgp) Chhattisgarh State Police Head Quarters, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Durg Range, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Of Police (Stf) Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Palash Thakur, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Devrishi Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking for the following relief :- "10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction, thereby directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground at any post, in lieu of his father (now deceased), by adopting sympathetic view. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.13 10:52:47 +0530 -2- 10.2 That, any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father namely Late Jagmohan Das was serving in the respondent No.1 Department as Company Commander, he died in harness on 13/01/2022. After the death of his father, the petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. However, the said application was rejected vide communication/order dated 16/03/2022 and 04/05/2022, informing that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as his mother namely – Smt. Maina Anant wife of the deceased employee is in Government Service and she has been regularized in the year - 2018. He further submits that the impugned communications are bad in law and requires to be set aside. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent State submits that as the mother of the petitioner is already in the Government service, in light of the relevant provisions of the Policy for compassionate appointment dated 29/08/2016 and 23/02/2019, the rejection of application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is well founded. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 236/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur) dated 21/06/2023. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner’s father was Government Service and died in harness during his service tenure. It is also not in dispute that mother of the petitioner (wife of the deceased/employee) was also in the Government Service. 7. This issue is no longer res-integra in light of judgment of this Court in W.A. No.236/2022, wherein this Court in paragraph 15 is observe as under:- -3- “15.In our considered opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra), Kevra Bai Markandey's case (supra) and the reference answered by another Division Bench of this Court in Purendra Kumar Sinha (supra) answering the issue involved in this reference and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Parkash Chand’s case (supra) and Nitin's case (supra), compassionate appointment has to be granted in accordance with the policy applicable and where the policy applicable for compassionate appointment clearly indicates that where one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service then other members of the family of the deceased Government servant would not be entitled for compassionate appointment, then the writ court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct to hold for 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 members of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by another member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rewording / revising the terms of the applicable policy for compassionate appointment, which, in our considered opinion, is wholly impermissible in law. Accordingly, we hold and answer the stated question 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 the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court -4- 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. 8. Thus in view of the settled legal position as enumerated by this Court in W.A. No.236/2022, this Court does not find this writ petition to be worth admission. Therefore, this petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 9. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish