1 2026:CGHC:26293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4947 of 2022 1 - Rajeev Ranjan Kashyap S/o Late Gopi Ram Kashyap Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Lalpur Kala, Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative Societies, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur , Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Registrar Co-Operative Societies , Atal Nagar New Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Board Of Director Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Mahmand Its Registration No. 383, Block - Bilha, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri T.L. Bareth, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 29.6.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records regarding present case from respondent authority. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order no. उपबि/साख/2022/915/Bilaspur, dated 01.06.2022 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-P/1), is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondent no. 3 & 4 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, is in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, namely Gopi Ram Kashyap was working under respondent No.4 on the post of Salesman, who died in harness on 5.12.2021. He would submit that the petitioner moved applications for grant of compassionate appointment on 20.12.2021 & 7.3.2021 but vide order dated 1.6.2022, respondent No.3 rejected the said applications on the ground that the appointment of father of the petitioner was contrary to the service rules as he was appointed at the age of 42 years 5 months and 6 days and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. He would submit that the 3 reasons assigned by respondent No.3 are erroneous. He would submit that as the petitioner was duly appointed under respondent No.3 strictly in accordance with the service rules, the petitioner is entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment in accordance with the prevailing service rules. He would pray to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the father of the petitioner was appointed at the age of 42 and therefore, the application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) The father of the petitioner was appointed long back and no enquiry was conducted against the order of appointment issued in his favour. After the death of father of the petitioner, no enquiry can be conducted in this regard and therefore, the rejection of application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the said ground appears to be erroneous and accordingly, Annexure – P/1 dated 1.6.2022 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing preferably, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4 6) Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi