1 2026:CGHC:2480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3110 of 2019 1 - Ku. Anamika Mandal D/o Late Sukant Mandal Aged About 32 Years R/o Bakharupara, Narayanpur, Post Thana, Tahsil And District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sudarshan Mandal S/o Late. Sukant Mandal Aged About 39 Years R/o Bakharupara, Narayanpur, Post Thana. Tahsil And District Narayanapur Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Engineer Public, Health And Engineering Department, Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Public, Health And Engineering Department, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2026.01.16 11:26:17 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. (SB: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL) Order on Board 15/01/2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for granting compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 1 in place of petitioner No. 2, as petitioner No. 2 is not interested for such appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since petitioner No. 2 is not interested for compassionate appointment, therefore, it be granted to petitioner No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that on account of death of Sukant Mandal, who died in harness, compassionate appointment was granted to petitioner No. 2 vide appointment order dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure-R/1) which he has not joined and now petitioner No. 1 along with petitioner No. 2 has filed the present writ petition seeking that the appointment be granted to petitioner No. 1 as petitioner No. 2 is not interested, which is not permissible as per Clause 20.2 of policy dated 14.06.2013, in which it is clearly mentioned that the order of compassionate appointment is not transferable, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 2 has been granted on 30.10.2017 vide Annexure-R/1, however, it is stated that he is not interested for such appointment and the same be granted to petitioner No. 1. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Clause 20.2 of the policy dated 14.06.2013 which states as under: “20 अक      र उध- (1) --------- (2) आत रर क क द क द गई अक   , रर क क अ" द क ततरत # ग। (3) ---------" 6. The aforesaid clause of policy dated 14.06.2013 clearly indicates that the compassionate appointment is not transferable to another member of the family. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh