PIYUSH KUMAR GUPTA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/5682/2021

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 14th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010262742021

Filing Number

WPS/14063/2021

Filing Date

29-Sep-2021

Registration No

WPS/5682/2021

Registration Date

04-Oct-2021

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. ( 613 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

14-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PIYUSH KUMAR GUPTA

    Adv. Tarendra Kumar Jha,KARAN BHARDWAJ,KARAN BHARDWAJ, ,Bhaskar Jha,Bhaskar Jha,Bhaskar Jha

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.Upper Development Commissioner,

  3. 3.Chief Executive Officer,

  4. 4.Chief Executive Officer,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking compassionate appointment following his father's death as a government servant. The court held that under Clause 6A of the 2016 Compassionate Appointment Policy, when any family member of a deceased government servant is already employed in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment, and no inquiry into financial dependency is permitted. The petitioner's plea that his brother did not financially support the family could not override this express policy condition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Oct-2021

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF

  4. 21-Oct-2021

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal

  5. 29-Sep-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/5682/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking compassionate appointment following his father's death as a government servant. The court held that under Clause 6A of the 2016 Compassionate Appointment Policy, when any family member of a deceased government servant is already employed in government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment, and no inquiry into financial dependency is permitted. The petitioner's plea that his brother did not financially support the family could not override this express policy condition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case