2026:CGHC:8228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1753 of 2026

1 - Rakesh Sahu S/o Late Shri Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Un-Employed, R/o 79, Ward No. 2, Naya Para, Thana And Tahsil Antagarh, District North Baster Kanker (C.G.)

... Petitioner Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Collector Kanker Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.)

3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer (C.M.H.O) Kanker, District- North Baster Kanker (C.G.)

4 - Block Health Officer Kanker, District- North Baster Kanker (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Raman Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

16.02.2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the decision of Respondent No. 3 rejecting the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

2. As per case of petitioner, brother of petitioner late Niraj Sahu while working as Staff Nurse (Male) and posted at Government Community Health Centre, Antagarh, District – North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh died in harness on 24.11.2024. Petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 09.01.2025 in the prescribed format along with relevant documents, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexuer P-4) observing that as one of the family member is already employed in government service, therefore, according to Clause 6A of Circular, 2013 (as amended on 31.03.2024) issued by the State Government, petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for grant of compassionate appointment, this writ petition is filed by petitioner seeking following reliefs.

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner claim for compassionate appointment as per policy applicable on the date of death of employee and in view of the principle laid down by this Court.

10.2 That, any other/relief order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the cost of the petition may kindly be passed.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that action on the part of respondent authority in rejecting claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and erroneous. It is contended the respondent authority failed to appreciate this fact that even though the parents of the petitioner are in government service, they are near to the age of attaining superannuation and therefore, after their retirement, they will be solely dependent upon the petitioner. It is further contended that the deceased brother of petitioner was taking care of him and other family members, after his death, petitioner and other family members are suffering from financial crises and are unable to maintain themselves.

4. Learned State counsel opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that Clause 6A is inserted in the Circular, 2013 (as amended on 31.03.2024) with some purpose. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a social scheme to protect the family members of deceased employee from sudden financial crisis due to untimely demise of their bread- winner. There is no error in rejecting the application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment because the parents of deceased employee is already in government employment, hence, petitioner (brother of deceased) is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. Perusal of documents available on record would show that brother of petitioner died in harness on 24.12.2024 and petitioner thereafter, submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 09.01.2025.