1 2026:CGHC:1301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6080 of 2023 • Ravi Shankar Maitry S/o Late Nooj Ram Maitry, Aged About 28 Years R/o Mig-101, Kiran Apartment, Raja Para Sakti, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Superintending Engineer Circle Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl), Janjgir District Janjgir (Chhattisgarh). 3. Executive Engineer (O And M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl), Division- Sakti, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 8.1.2026 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:- “10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 To Kindly Set aside the order dated 13/05/2022 (Annexure P/1) and direct the respondents to re- consider the claim of the petitioner afresh within stipulated time. 10.3 To kindly direct the respondent to take a decision within a stipulated period for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.4 To kindly pass any other suitable direction or order or grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Grade-II at Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.), and he unfortunately died in harness during the Covid-19 pandemic on 17.04.2021. On the date of his death, the deceased employee was survived by the petitioner and the widow of the deceased, i.e. the mother of the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has one elder brother and one sister; 3 however, the elder brother was married long prior to the death of the deceased, has his own family and children, and has been living separately much before the deceased expired, having no physical, mental, or financial dependence or relationship with the petitioner’s family. Thus, on the date of death of the deceased employee, only the petitioner and the widow of the deceased were dependent upon him. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application for compassionate appointment along with undertakings given by the elder brother as well as the mother; however, vide the impugned order, the said application has been rejected solely on the ground that the brother of the petitioner is in government employment and, under the prevailing policy, since one member of the family of the deceased is a government employee, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and returned. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.5.2022 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, bad in law and liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment only on the ground that one of the family member is in government Job. He further submits that the dependency ought to have considered the concerned petitioner is residing separately and is totally depend upon the deceased, however, this aspect has not been 4 considered. He further 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. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Smt. Sulochana Netam vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors passed on 23.11.2017, the Hon’ble Court has observed as under:- “9. In the considered opinion of this Court, in a case, where claim of compassionate appointment is made on the ground that the other member of the family had started living separately and not providing any financial help to the remaining dependent members of the family, who are at lurch, factual enquiry ought to be made by the competent authority to arrive at its own conclusion of facts as to whether this assertion of other earning member living separately is factually correct or not. If it is found, as a matter of fact, that the other earning member of the family at the time of death had already started living separately and not providing financial assistance to the remaining dependents of the family, compassionate 5 appointment must follow to eligible dependent of the family. However, in the enquiry, if it is found that the claim is only to get employment without there being any need because other earning member of the family is not living separately and providing financial support, compassionate appointment may not follow. The aforesaid enquiry is required to be done even though the policy does not categorically state so. The State should consider by incorporating amendments in the policy to deal with this such contingency where it is found that on the date of death of government servant, the other earning member was living separately and not providing any financial help.” 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since brother 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 the absence of any challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondent authority cannot be said to be illegal and bad in law. He further submits that there is circular to this affect that if any family members is in government servant compassionate appointment cannot be 6 given. He further submits that this Court has passed n number of judgments in which it has been categorically considered and the compassionate appointment has been denied to the person who is having family members in government job. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 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 7 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 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.” 7. Taking into the present case in hand, since the brother 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. 8 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat