1 CGHC010315842026 2026:CGHC:36218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6155 of 2026 1 - Ku. Smita Tirkey D/o Late Shri Agastu Tirkey Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Joganipali, ( Padampur Road) P. S. Saraipali, District Mahasamunda C. G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C. G. 2 - Director General Of Police General Administration, Head Quarter Raipur, District Raipur C. G. 3 - Inspector General Of Police Durg Rang Durg C. G. 4 - Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund Ditrict Mahasamund C. G. 5 - Reserved Inspector Mahasamund District Mahasamund C. G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandrasen Chouhan, Advocate For State : Mr. Luv Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 14/08/2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by Respondent AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.08.18 10:27:28 +0530 2 No.4, whereby her application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her father, Late Agastu Tirkey, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner Late Agastu Tirkey, was serving as Head Constable in the respondent department since 14.10.1981 and died in harness on 12.08.2011. After his death, the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the same is rejected on the ground that her mother is employed in Government service and working as A.N.M. in Government Hospital, Saraipali. Learned counsel further submits that the mother of the petitioner has given her consent and categorically stated that she has no objection if the petitioner is granted appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has rightly been rejected by the competent authority in accordance with Clause 3(08) of the Rules dated 29/06/2009. It is submitted that, as per the said provision, where an earning member is available amongst the widow/widower or unmarried son of the deceased Government servant and their total annual income, excluding the family pension, exceeds ₹60,000/- per annum, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the widow/widower, son, daughter or any other family member. Learned State counsel further submits that, in the present case, 3 the mother of the petitioner is employed in Government service and working as A.N.M. in Government Hospital, Saraipali and is an earning member of the family. Hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned dated 28/11/2011. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 5. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner is employed in Government service and is working as an A.N.M. at Government Hospital, Saraipali. She is, therefore, an earning member of the family. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision and the undisputed fact that an earning member is already available in the family, the petitioner is not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. Consequently, the competent authority has rightly rejected the petitioner's claim by order dated 28.11.2011. 6. Another aspect which cannot be brushed aside is the fact that the basic object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government employee so as to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the sole breadwinner. In the present case, the petitioner's mother was already in Government service at the time of the death of the petitioner's father. The petitioner's claim was considered and rejected in accordance with the prevailing policy. Therefore, no ground for interference is made 4 out. 7. The Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur (WA No.236 of 2022, decided on 07.07.2023), while placing reliance upon the Larger Bench/Full Bench decision of this Court, reiterated the legal position and held as under in paragraph 4: “A careful perusal of the order passed by the full Bench would show that the full Bench of this Court has clearly held that no such inquiry can be made qua the dependency / financial support by one of the family members of the deceased who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased who has made the application for compassionate appointment. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain and accordingly, set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent herein would stand dismissed.” 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the competent authority has rejected the petitioner's claim in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy applicable at the relevant point of time. No jurisdictional error, arbitrariness or illegality is found in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court. 5 9. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merit liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Amardeep