1. Heard Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Anukul Biswas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.2 and 3.

2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):-

“1. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of wps no. 9376 of 2023 from the file of the hon'ble single bench;

2. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in WPS No. 9376 of 2023 (Mukund Hela vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and uphold/affirm the order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Appellant, as being in strict consonance with the mandatory State Policy dated 14.06.2013;

3. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.”

3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.9376/2023 (Mukund Hela v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been allowed.

4. Brief facts of the case before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, are that the father of the writ petitioner, late Kailash Ram, was working on the post of Sanitary Worker under the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur. During the course of his service, he died in harness on 03.09.2017 leaving behind his wife, three sons and one daughter, all of whom were dependent upon the income of the deceased employee. After the untimely death of his father, the writ petitioner submitted an application dated 27.11.2017 seeking compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable policy of the State Government.

5. It was the case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge that his application for compassionate appointment came to be rejected on the ground that his mother was employed as a Safai Karmachari and, therefore, the family was not entitled to compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted a representation/appeal before the Director stating that although his mother was in service, she was due to retire in the year 2028 and after her retirement the family would be left without adequate financial support. Taking note of the said grievance, the Director vide communication dated 17.07.2018 forwarded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration of the claim of the writ petitioner.

6. The writ petitioner further pleaded before the learned Single Judge that thereafter he again submitted an application dated 27.06.2018 seeking compassionate appointment and specifically referred to similarly situated persons namely Surendra Bahadur Singh and Suraj Kirwar, who were allegedly granted compassionate appointment despite the fact that their mothers were employed in Government service. According to the writ petitioner, denial of compassionate appointment to him while extending similar benefit to other similarly situated persons amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.

7. It was further contended by the writ petitioner that despite repeated representations and communications issued by the competent authorities for reconsideration of his claim, the respondents failed to take any final decision in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy applicable in the State.

8. According to the writ petitioner, such inaction on the part of the respondent authorities was unjustified, arbitrary and contrary to the object underlying compassionate appointment, namely to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee dying in harness.

9. Feeling aggrieved by non-consideration of his claim, the writ petitioner preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge bearing WPS No.9376/2023, which was allowed by the learned Single