1 2026:CGHC:1610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 218 of 2026 1 - Vinod Kumar Hathekar S/o Late Balram Ahirwar, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Village- Barpali, District Korba C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ayush Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector, Korba, District Korba C.G. 3 - District Ayush Officer, Korba, District Korba C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 12/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of order or direction to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 04-11-2025 (Annexure P-1) issue by respondent No.3, District Ayush Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider and grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in place of his deceased father Late Shri Balram Ahirwar, Dispensary Attendant, Government Ayurved Dispensary, Barpali, District Korba (C.G.). BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that father of petitioner was initially posted as Dispensary Attendant in Government Ayurveda Dispensary, Village- Barpali, District Korba (C.G.). After attaining the age of superannuation, father of petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2025. He died on 15.10.2025 due to illness in Naryana Hospital, Raipur. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment, which was rejected observing that as father petitioner was retired and not in service, therefore, there is no provision to provide compassionate appointment in such cases, which is erroneous and contrary to the documents (Annexure P-8) enclosed along with writ petition. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that according to policy formulated by State Government for grant of compassionate appointment, it clearly mentions that if the government servant died while in service, then one of the family members can be granted compassionate appointment, subject to the conditions as mentioned therein. According to the pleadings made in the writ petition father of petitioner retired from service much earlier to his death, therefore, there is no error on the part of the respondents in rejecting the application submitted by petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 5. The circular dated 15.04.2004 issued by State Government with regard to compassionate appointment and in furtherance of directives of 2013 it clearly mentions that compassionate appointment is to be granted to one of the family members of the deceased government employee, who dies while in service. The compassionate appointment is a policy formulated by the State Government and claim of applicant is to be considered strictly in accordance with the policy formulated by State Government. The Court cannot re-write the policy formulated by the State Government. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but if applicant falls within the terms and conditions of the policy formulated by the State Government, then only the claim of applicant can be considered in accordance with law. 6. I find support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of H.P. v. Parkash Chand, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus :- “10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] , SBI v. Kunti Tiwary [SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] , Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja [Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 938] , SBI v. Somvir Singh [SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 : 4 (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 92] , Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] , Union of India v. Shashank Goswami [Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 51] , SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi [SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 689] and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539].]” 7. The document which is placed reliance by learned counsel for petitioner (Annexure P-8) is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is a notification issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions (Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare), which dealt with Civil Services Pension Rules, 2021. 8. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merits in this petition or any error in decision taken by respondents vide Annexure P-1 rejecting the application for grant of compassionate appointment. Accordingly, this petition is devoid of substance is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram