1 2025:CGHC:54695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7384 of 2023 1 - Akash Kumar Thakur S/o Late Shri Khilawan, Singh Thakur, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Didabhatha (Ranitarai) Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indrwati Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Colletor, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Blcok Education Officer, Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shokib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/11/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by District Education Officer, Durg (Annexure P/1) and further directed to grant the compassioned appointment to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The instant writ petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 25.5.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the application/claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case on 25.05.2021, the District Education Officer, Durg, passed an impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner’s mother is presently employed as a government servant. The said rejection was based on the rule governing compassionate appointments, which provides that if one member of the deceased employee’s family is already employed in government service, no other family member is entitled to compassionate appointment. However, the petitioner has been 3 living separately from his parents since childhood and has been under the care of his grandparents. He has never resided with or been dependent on his parents. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim is illegal and unsustainable, as the very object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee. In the present case, except for the petitioner’s late father, there is no other government employee in the petitioner’s household, and thus, he is entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.5.2021 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, bad in law and liable to be set-aside. She submits that the petitioner was fully dependent upon his father. She submits that as the petitioner was fully depended upon his father and after his death, the petitioner is not able to maintain himself and is facing great difficulties to survive himself, therefore, he is in extreme need to get an employment on compassionate ground, so that he may survive. Accordingly, the said impugned order may be set-aside and the present petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since mother of the petitioner is already in government job, as such, in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment, the candidature of the petitioner/applicant has been rejected and in 4 the absence of any challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondent authority cannot be said to be illegal and bad in law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Yash Kumar Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WA No.842/2024 vide order dated 12.12.2024 has confirmed the order passed by learned Single Judge in which the claim for compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that one of the family member is in government service. The relevant para is quoted hereinbelow:- “13.Learned Single Judge further held that it is not in dispute that the mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi as such, it cannot be said that deceased employees died in harness entitled the appellant to get compassionate appointment. Even the retiral dues of the Government Servant along with emoluments earned by the family members of the Shiksha Karmi who are now government servant cannot be said to be insufficient to fall the appellant within the ambit of sudden financial crisis or penury. The financial crisis or penury is basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government regarding grant of compassionate appointment. As such, the action of the respondents authorities in canceling the appointment or not issuing appointment order to the appellant on compassionate ground is justified on the count that mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi 5 who is not government servant still he is in gainful employment and it cannot be held that appellant is having sudden financial or pecuniary crisis, as such, the order of cancellation of appointment is legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity. 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 8. Taking into the present case in hand, since the mother of the petitioner is already in government service, as such, according to policy for compassionate appointment of the State Government as also the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat