1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4670 of 2021 1 - Rahul Anant S/o Late Narayan Prasad Anant Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Lamer, Post Lamer, Ward No. 5, Satnami Mohalla, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocate For State / Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Seema Verma on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/11/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.11.10 17:18:58 +0530 2 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside/quash the order dated 2.7.2021 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh after due verification of dependency part of petitioner 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 02.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2 by which the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment with the respondent No. 2 was rejected. She submits that the father of the petitioner Late Narayan Prasad Anant was working as Branch Manager with the respondent No. 2 died in harness on 01.05.2021. Petitioner being son of the deceased employee, made an application for grant of compassionate appointment to the respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-3. The said application was rejected by the impugned order holding that the petitioner brother is in government service and in light of Clause 6 and 6(A) of the policy of year 2013, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. She submits that the brother of the petitioner is residing separately and no monitory help is being extended to the petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner was dependent upon the income of his father i.e. deceased employee, therefore, the rejection of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is bad in law. Therefore, the impugned order Annexure P-1 may be set aside and the case of the petitioner may be considered for compassionate appointment by the respondent No. 2. 3. Per contra, leaned counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly the petitioner’s brother is in government service as a teacher and as per Clause 6 and 6 (A) Policy of 2013, if any family members of the deceased employee is in government service, the other family members would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. They placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Umesh Thakur in WA No. 236 of 2022 delivered on 21.06.2023 and Neeraj Kumar Uke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WA No. 334 of 2021 dated 10.12.2021. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3 5. It is not a dispute that the father of the petitioner was working as Branch Manager with the respondent No. 2 and died in harness during the course of employment. It is also not a disputed that the policy of 2013 of the State Government is applicable to the respondent No. 2. It is also not a dispute that the brother of the petitioner is working as a teacher with the respondent. Therefore, a family members of the deceased employee is already in government service. In this regard no longer res integra in light of judgment of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra) in which paragraph 16 this Court has observed as under: 16. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only on the basis of scheme applicable for such appointment. When the scheme itself provides that no appointment shall be granted on compassionate ground, if any of the family members is in government service, no appointment can be claimed on the ground that the family member in government service is not giving any financial assistance. No obligation is cast upon the government under the scheme to find out as to whether such employee is providing any financial assistance to the other members of the family. 6. The case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from the law laid down by this Court in case of Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra), therefore, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan