1 2026:CGHC:23849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 400 of 2025 Tushar Sao S/o Late Praveen Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o House No. 288, Santkabeer Ward 11, Matiya Road, Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Health And Family Welfare, Government Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 492002 2 - The Director Directorate Of Health Services, Chhattisgarh Sawsthya Bhavan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Block Medical Officer Community Health Centre, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.06.16 17:13:39 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the impugned letter dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-3), whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father while in service, has been rejected on the ground that his brother is in Government service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father, who was working as Supervisor in the Health Department, died in harness on 22.05.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment; however, his application was rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that his elder brother is in government service and, therefore, in view of Clause 6A of the compassionate appointment policy, the petitioner is not entitled to such appointment. He further submits that the brother of the petitioner is not in government service whereas he is under the employment of State Bank of India working as Assistant Manager hence the Clause 6A of compassionate appointment policy will not attract in the facts of the present case. He would submit that the issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the judgment dated 06.09.2022 3 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 110 of 2020 (Ku. Deepa Shrivastav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected matters. Therefore, the impugned rejection order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 3. Learned State counsel while supporting the aforesaid submission of the petitioner, would submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition has been considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed in Ku. Deepa Shrivastav (supra). 4. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the judgment dated 06.09.2022 is reproduced herein below:- “49. Clause 6A rendered an applicant ineligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds if any member of the family of the deceased government employee is in government employment. Compassionate appointment has to be made strictly in accordance with the policy. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in absence of any stipulation in Clause 6A that any member of the family of the deceased government servant being in government service or in employment of autonomous bodies/bodies/Boards/ Corporations, etc. of the State/Central Government or regular employment in any other service, rejection of the case of the appellant in WA No.110/2020 on the ground that her brother is working in State Bank of India cannot be sustained. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in expanding the provision of Clause 6A to also 4 include any other type of employment beyond the government service within the ambit of Clause 6A.” 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the brother of the petitioner is not holding any government post and is employed as an Assistant Manager in the State Bank of India. Therefore, the bar contained in Clause 6A of the Compassionate Appointment Policy would not be attracted in the facts of the present case. Further, considering that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WA No. 110 of 2020, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in the aforesaid writ appeal. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 06.09.2022 passed in WA No. 110 of 2020 & other connected matters. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar