Ku. Bharti Sonekar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4503 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Ku. Bharti Sonekar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 September, 2025

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                       1




       Digitally
       signed by
       SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:

                                                                      2025:CGHC:47681-DB
       2025.09.17
       17:50:28
       +0530




                                                                                   NAFR

                              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                            WA No. 666 of 2025



                    1 - Ku. Bharti Sonekar D/o Late Ashok Sonekar Aged About 30 Years

                    R/o Qtr. No. 1/25, University Colony, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla

                    University, Amanaka, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G)

                                                                               ... Appellant

                                                    versus



                    1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Dept. Of Higher

                    Education, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.)



                    2 - Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Through Registrar G.E.

                    Road, Amanaka, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G)

                                                                         ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Appellant : Shri Sudeep Johri, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

17.09.2025

1. Heard Shri Sudeep Johri, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Shri Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the

respondent no. 2.

2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing

the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge

in Writ Petition WPS No. 2534/2021, whereby the writ petition

preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be

dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

referred as per their status before the learned Writ Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the

appellant/writ petitioner was working on the post of Lower

Division Clerk under respondent No.2 and died in harness on

23.02.2013. The petitioner applied for compassionate

appointment on 06.05.2013 before respondent No.2. She

moved another application on 15.10.2015. When no decision

was taken, WPS No.4747 of 2020 was filed and a direction was

issued to the respondent authorities to decide claim of the

petitioner expeditiously. Respondent No.2 rejected the

application vide order dated 22.01.2021 on the ground that

Pramod Sonekar, son of the deceased was granted

compassionate appointment in the year 2018.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned

Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order

impugned and has observed as under:-

"According to Clause 6(a) of the Policy for the

compassionate appointment, if one of the member of

the family is in government service, any other

members would not be entitled for the compassionate

appointment. It is not in dispute that Pramod Sonekar,

brother of the petitioner was granted compassionate

appointment on account of death of his mother and

thus, one of the member of the family is already in

service, therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly

rejected the application for grant of compassionate

appointment. This petition fails and is hereby

dismissed."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that

the learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the material

facts of the case inasmuch as the first mother of the appellant,

late Smt. Lata Sonekar, who was working as an Upper Division

Clerk under respondent no.2, had expired and thereafter her

nominee, namely the step-brother of the appellant, Pramod

Kumar Sonekar, was granted compassionate appointment.

However, after the demise of the appellant's father,

compassionate appointment has been illegally denied to the

appellant on the ground that one appointment had already

been given to the son of deceased Ashok Sonekar in 2018,

without considering that the earlier appointment was granted

to the nominee of late Smt. Lata Sonekar (first mother) and

not against the death of the father. It is urged that the

documents pertaining to such appointment were neither

considered nor discussed in the impugned order. It is further

submitted that Clause 6(a) of the policy for compassionate

appointment (Annexure P-7), which disentitles a family

member on the ground that one appointment has already

been given, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it

cannot disentitle children born out of the second marriage of

a deceased employee from consideration. It is further

contended that the policy itself is unconstitutional to the

extent that it discriminates among the children of a deceased

employee by recognizing the rights of some as legitimate

while denying others merely on the ground of descent. On

these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned order is

arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 would oppose the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/writ petitioner. He would submit that the Policy for

compassionate appointment issued by the State Government

applies with the University. He would further submit that

according to Clause 6(a) of the Policy, if any of the family

member of the deceased is in public service, any other

member would not be entitled for compassionate

appointment. He would contend that one of the family

members of the petitioner is already in the service, therefore

the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Since the order

passed by the learned Single Judge on correct appreciation of

facts and law, it does not suffer from any illegality, perversity,

or jurisdictional error,

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available in the record.

8. On a bare perusal of Clause 6(a) of the Policy for

Compassionate Appointment, it is clear that where one of the

members of the family is already in government service, no

other member of the family would be entitled to

compassionate appointment. It is not in dispute that Pramod

Sonekar, the step-brother of the appellant, was granted

compassionate appointment on account of the death of his

mother, late Smt. Lata Sonekar, and is continuing in service.

9. In view of the said policy stipulation, the appellant cannot

claim a further right of compassionate appointment on

account of the subsequent death of her father. Thus, on due

consideration, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly

applied Clause 6(a) of the policy while rejecting the writ

petition, and we see no error or perversity in the finding so

recorded so as to warrant interference in this appeal.

10. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to

cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from

patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the

present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly

dismissed the writ petition.

                Sd/-                            Sd/-
           (Bibhu Datta Guru)              (Ramesh Sinha)
                Judge                       Chief Justice


shoaib