1 2026:CGHC:6675 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8950 of 2023 Avinash Bhoi, Son Of Devanand Bhoi, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Sankra (Jonk), Block Pithora District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. AG S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. Perused the record. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 28.2.2020, whereby, his application for compassionate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 appointment was rejected. 3. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs in the petition : (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash rejection order dated 28.02.2020 Annexure P-1 and direct the respondent authority to reconsider claim of the petitioner as Annexure P-7 and grant compassionate appointment with all consequential benefit within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 4. Necessary facts of the case are that the mother of the petitioner - Late Shri Manjulata Bhoi was working as Upper Division Teacher at Govt. Middle School, Sangundhap, Block Pithora, District Mahasamund. She died in harness on 16.4.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 28.2.2020 on the ground that the father of the petitioner has been working as Teacher (LB). 5. It is stated in the petition that on the date of the death of the petitioner's wife (Late Manjulata Bhoi), the petitioner’s father was working as Teacher (Panchayat) and was not a Government employee. He was subsequently absorbed into the Education Department only on 1.7.2018. Hence, the rejection of the representation of the petitioner vide the impugned order is 3 arbitrary and unjustified. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for State submits that as per clause 6(a) of the Circular dated 23.2.2019, if any member of the family of the deceased Government Servant’s family is already in Government Service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. In the present case, the father of the petitioner is indeed in Government Service. Furthermore, the subject issue is covered by the order dated 21.6.2023 passed in WA No.236/2022 by the Full Bench of this Court. 7. Admittedly, the matter relates to compassionate appointment. The concerned authorities have dismissed the petitioner’s application vide the impugned order on the ground that since one of the family members of the late deceased-Government Employee is in Government Service, the petitioner is ineligible for compassionate appointment under the State Government’s Policy. In my view, the impugned order was rightly passed by the concerned authority. Moreover, the subject issue is covered by the order dated 21.6.2023 passed in WA No.236/2022 by the Full Bench of this Court. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under : “When one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government 4 service to the other family member of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing / rewording of the terms of the applicable scheme / policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment in view of the State Government’s Policy as also in light of the order dated 21.6.2023 passed in WA No.236/2022 by the Full Bench of this Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay