1 2026:CGHC:5070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1078 of 2020 1 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Pooraram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sambalpuri, Post And Police Station Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Additional Director General Of Police (Adgp) Administration, Police Headquarters (Phq), Near Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - Deputy Superintendent Of Police (Dy. S. P.) Administration, Police Headquarters (Phq), Near Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 4 - Superintendent Of Police (S. P.) Office Of Superintendent Of Police (S. P.) Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rishabhdev Sahu appears on behalf of Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.01.29 18:54:11 +0530 2 For Respondent(s) : Shri Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal , J Order On Board 29/01/2026 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed against the orders dated 27.2.2017 (Annexure-P/2) & 15.3.2017 (Annexure-P/3) by which his application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his brother namely, Mukesh Kumar Sahu has already been posted as Constable in the District Police Force, Raipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities were not justified in rejecting his application for grant of compassionate appointment and the findings recorded by the competent authority are perverse. As such, the impugned orders may be quashed/set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned orders. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The competent authority, while rejecting the application for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, has categorically relied upon the circular dated 6.6.2014 and the modified circular dated 29.8.2016, which clearly provide that if any member of the deceased Government servant is already in service, other members of the family would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. 3 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said finding is correct, which does not call for any interference of this Court. Moreover, there is no material available on record to show that the said finding is perverse. 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