1 2026:CGHC:6588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6129 of 2019 1 - Smt. Neelam Yadav D/o Late Ratan Sai Aged About 32 Years R/o Bhattapara, Behind Manipur School, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Chief Engineer Water Resources Department Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 3 - Collector District Surguja Chhattisgarh, 4 - Additional Collector District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Engineer Shyam Barnai, Project Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri CJK Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal , J Order On Board 05/02/2026 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 13.4.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector, Ambikapur by which the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of compassionate KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.02.06 12:25:24 +0530 2 appointment was rejected on the ground that one member of her family i.e. her husband is already in Government service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had applied for grant of compassionate appointment, as she was entitled on account of death of her father and the impugned order has been passed holding that since one member of her family i.e. her husband is already in service, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed/set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the submission putforth by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the object of the policy is that if one member of the family is already in Government service, other members are not entitled for compassionate appointment. Even if the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed to stand, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment and the application preferred by the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the Writ Petition carefully. 5. Though in the first round of litigation, this Court by order dated 1.3.2017 passed in WPS No.185/2017 relying upon its earlier decision in the matter of Smt. Sarojni Bhoi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No.296/2014, decided on 30.11.2015) while observing that as per the amended policy issued by the State Government the married 3 daughters are also eligible for compassionate appointment, however, the fact remains that husband of the petitioner is already in Government service. Therefore, in the light of circular dated 20.5.2014, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Moreover, the object of the said circular is that if one member of the family is in Government service, the other members of the family would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Furthermore, if the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed to stand, it would go against the circular dated 20.5.2014 as also against clause-8 of the circular dated 10.6.2003. 6. For the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected. 7. I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve