Order : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The petitioner herein, being minor through his mother, seeks to challenge the order dated 4-10-2019 by which his application for compassionate appointment on the post of Bal Ardali has been rejected holding that his mother is in Government service and in view of the circular of the State Government dated 29-8-2016 (para 6A), no compassionate appointment can be granted. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 3. Yuvraj Singh, who was working with the Police Department as Constable (Driver), died in harness on 18-12-2018. Mother of the petitioner made application that on account of death of her husband, her son Mayank Singh (petitioner herein) be granted compassionate appointment on the post of Bal Ardali. The Superintendent of Police by its order dated 4-10-2019, which is impugned herein, referring to the circular dated 29-8-2016 (para 6A) held that since one member of the family of the petitioner is already in government service, appointment cannot be granted. 4. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein, would submit that since compassionate appointment is governed by Regulation 60 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations read with circulars dated 27-6-2008 and 5-2-2013 issued by the Police Department, the State Government circular would not be applicable which prohibits that if one family member is already in Government service, other member of the family cannot be granted appointment, which is vehemently opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondents/State on the ground that the deceased was working with the Police Department, which is one of the Departments of the State Government, therefore, different criteria cannot be applied for the Department of Police. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Clause 6A of the circular dated 29-8-2016 states as under: - 7. A careful perusal of the aforesaid clause would show that if one member of the family of the deceased Government servant is in Government service, other member is not entitled for compassionate appointment. In the present case, mother of the petitioner is already in Government service as Teacher Panchayat and her services have already been merged in the Department of School Education and now, she is a regular Government servant, which is not in dispute. In the present case, mother of the petitioner is already in Government service as Teacher Panchayat and her services have already been merged in the Department of School Education and now, she is a regular Government servant, which is not in dispute. However, the submission is that Regulation 60 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations would apply, which states as under: - “ 60. Boy-orderlies .-A certain number of appointments as constables may be given by Superintendents to boys under the ages of 18. They are known as “boy-orderlies”, and receive half the pay of an ordinary constable. In making these appointments preference should always be given to sons or relatives of police officers, or of men who have rendered good service to Government. As soon as a boy-orderly satisfies the conditions laid down in Regulation 53, he should be given a preferential claim to appointment in the first vacancy that occurs.” 8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid Regulation would show that the Superintendent of Police is entitled to appoint boys under the ages of 18 as boy-orderlies, however, in making these appointments, preference should always be given to sons or relatives of police officers, or of men who have rendered good service to Government. As such, the appointment has to be made from amongst sons or relatives of police officers or of men who have rendered good service to Government. It has no relation with the compassionate appointment. 9. Similarly, the petitioner has cited circulars dated 27-6-2008 and 5-2-2013. These circulars relate to granting facilities to the boy-orderly appointed by the competent authority. However, the circular dated 29-8-2016 clearly directs that if one member of the family of the deceased Government servant is already in Government employment, compassionate appointment would not be granted to the other member of the said family. As such, the circular dated 29- 8-2016 is explicit and clear and therefore the argument that circular dated 29-8-2016 would not be applicable in case of Police Department cannot be accepted, as the Department of Police is also a Governmental Department and well governed by the circular dated 29-8-2016. Regulation 60 of the Police Regulations cannot be made applicable to a case where the petitioner is not entitled by virtue of clause 6A of the circular dated 29-8-2016. 10. Regulation 60 of the Police Regulations cannot be made applicable to a case where the petitioner is not entitled by virtue of clause 6A of the circular dated 29-8-2016. 10. A Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.236/2022 ( State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Umesh Thakur ), decided on 21-6-2023, speaking through Ramesh Sinha, CJ, had already held 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 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.” 11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any force in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).