1 2026:CGHC:8919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2548 of 2020 1 - Ramayan Bai Pathare Wd/o Lt. Shri Balaram Pathare Aged About 51 Years R/o Village And Post Kosamsara, Tahsil And P.S.- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Avinash Kumar Pathare S/o Lt. Shri Balaram Pathare Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Kosamsara, Tahsil And P.S.- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, P.S. And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Office Of Director, Department Of School Education, Near Mahanadi Mantralay, P.S. And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer (D.E.O.) Office Of D.E.O., Department Of Education, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. KP Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 19.02.2026 1. Heard. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner claim for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent-authorities vide order dated 23.09.2019 on the ground that his brother, namely, Ashish Pathare is already in employment, which is sought to be challenged. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad, illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this petition on the ground that the respondents-authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in light of State policy dated 23.02.2019. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. At this stage it would be profitable to notice the relevant portion of State policy dt. 23.02.2019, which reads as under: “6A. In the family of the deceased married government servant, if any other member of the family is already in government service, then the other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Explanation. Dependents of the family of deceased married and unmarried government servant shall include the following members: A) In case of married government servant – Dependent mother, dependent parents, widow/widower, son and daughter (including adopted son/daughter, widow/ divorced daughter) and daughter in law. B) In case of unmarried government servant (or widower having no son/daughter) – dependent father, mother, brother and sister.” 3 7. A careful perusal of the above-quote para would clearly show that if in the family of the deceased government servant, any member of the family is already in government service, then the other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment and, admittedly, in the present case, since petitioner’s brother, namely, Ashish Pathare was already in employment, in view of the aforesaid clause of the State policy dated 23.02.2019, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. As such, I do not find any merit in this petition. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if