1 CGHC010092832019 2026:CGHC:31168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1982 of 2019 Som Prakash Singh S/o Late Shri Sudarshan Prasad Aged About 28 Years R/o Tulsipur, Labour Colony, Ward No. 17, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K Agrawal (Order on Board) 22.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. In this petition the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 05.09.2017, by which his application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his brother is already a government servant. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the brother of the petitioner was only working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, which cannot be considered to be a government employment. Therefore, the present petition be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel by taking this Court to Para-06 of the return, submits that there is no dispute that the brother of the petitioner was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, but as per the policy of the government, after completion of more than 8 years of service, the services of the brother of the petitioner has been absorbed by the School Education Department and, as such, there is no confusion or ambiguity regarding interpretation of the policy dated 14.06.2013 in the case of the petitioner and his claim has rightly been rejected. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In that view of the matter, admittedly, since services of the brother of the petitioner, while working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II for more than 8 years, has already been absorbed by the School Education Department, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondents in view of Clause 13(1) of the policy dated 14.06.2013. Accordingly, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition and the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected being meritless. No cost. sd/- s@if (Sanjay K Agrawal) Judge