1 CGHC010289702026 2026:CGHC:35844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5879 of 2026 Aditya Chouhan S/o Laxman Chouhan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Kandaibahar, Tehsil - Farsabahar, At Present Resident Of Kaliba, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Home Police Head Quarter Administrative Building, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Director General Of Police (D G P) District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 4 - Reserve Inspector Reserve Police Center Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 5 - Smt. Pooja Chouhan D/o Laxman Chouhan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kandaibahar, At Present Resident Of Kaliba, Tehsil Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.08.14 17:27:51 +0530 2 6 - Bharti Chouhan D/o Laxman Chouhan Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kandaibahar, At Present Resident Of Kaliba, Tehsil Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Uma Tiwari W/o Dharmendra Tiwari Aged About 57 Years R/o Chhuikhadan Rajnandgaon, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. (Present District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai, C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Virendra Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. The petitioner has =led the present writ petition challenging the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the respondent authority, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the son of Late Shri Laxman Das Chouhan, who was serving under the Police Department on the post of Deputy 3 Superintendent of Police and died on 23.09.2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. After the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was left along with the other legal heirs of the deceased employee. 3. It is further submitted that after the death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds before the respondent authority. The petitioner’s application, however, came to be rejected by the respondent authority vide order dated 31.10.2025 on the ground that the second wife of the deceased employee is already in Government service. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has, therefore, preferred the present writ petition before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner without properly appreciating his entitlement under the circular dated 14.06.2013. It is further submitted that respondent No.7, namely Smt. Uma Tiwari, failed to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. It is submitted that earlier respondent No.7 had =led Civil Revision No. 286/2025 before this Court 4 claiming death-cum-retiral bene=ts of the deceased employee, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2026. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules/policy observing that the second wife of the deceased employee is already in Government service. Thus, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 31.10.2025. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached with the petition. 7. The contention of the petitioner that the deceased employee's second wife, Smt. Uma Tiwari, is residing separately and that she is not extending any =nancial assistance to the family also does not persuade this Court to interfere. The competent authority considered the petitioner's claim in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy prevailing on the date of consideration and found the petitioner ineligible on account of the fact that one member of the deceased employee's family, 5 namely, his second wife Smt. Uma Tiwari, was already in Government service as Assistant Class-III in the Irrigation Department, Chhuikhadan. In terms of Clause (6)(A) of the Consolidated Revised Instructions, 2013 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, where another member of the family of a deceased married Government servant is already in Government service, no other member of the family is eligible for compassionate appointment. Once the policy prescribes such a disquali=cation, the authority was bound to act in terms thereof, and this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct relaxation of the policy merely on equitable considerations. 8. Another aspect which cannot be brushed aside is the fact that the basic object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate =nancial assistance to the family of a deceased Government employee so as to tide over the sudden =nancial crisis caused by the death of the sole breadwinner. 6 9. The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was considered and rejected in accordance with Clause (6)(A) of the Consolidated Revised Instructions, 2013 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which provides that where another member of the family of a deceased married Government servant is already in Government service, no other member of the family is eligible for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the deceased's son, Shri Aditya Chauhan, was in accordance with the prevailing policy, and no ground for interference is made out. 10. 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 / nancial support by one of the family members of the deceased who is already 7 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 led by the respondent herein would stand dismissed.” 11. 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. 12. 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 Shoaib