ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated 10.08.2015 (part of Anneuxre P/1) issued by Respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner was working as daily wager employee (Time-Keeper) from 01.02.19982 with Sub Divisional Officer, Kawardha. Vide order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/1), the services of the petitioner’s father were regularised whose name finds in the said regularisation order at Sl. No.129. During the service period, the petitioner’s father died on 08.06.2014 (Annexure P/2) leaving behind two children and wife. After the death of petitioner’s father, the petitioner on 05.12.2014 (Annexure P/4) applied for compassionate appointment. The petitioner repeatedly made request for compassionate appointment vide applications dated 07.04.2015, 23.04.2015 and 28.04.2015 (Annexure P/4), however, the respondent authorities instead of granting compassionate appointment hibernated his file. During the pendency of compassionate appointment matter with respondent authorities, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.2241/2015, wherein vide order dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure P/5), this Court disposed of the petition of the petitioner directing the respondent No.2 therein to consider and decided the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment by a speaking order. Thereafter, in compliance to the above order dated 03.07.2015, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P/6) on 20.07.2015, which was dismissed by the Respondent No.2 holding that the petitioner’s father was daily wage employee and according to the Clause (17) of Circular No.F7-1/2012/1-3, New Raipur dated 14.06.2013, issued by the General Administration Department, Govt. of C.G., on the death of a daily wage employee, his dependent family members will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s):- “10.1.The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent authority to appointment petitioner on compassionate ground. 10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Letter dt. 10.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) and further direct to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment. 10.3 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct any suitable direction against the Respondent in the circumstances of the case. 10.4 Any other relief, which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. 10.3 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct any suitable direction against the Respondent in the circumstances of the case. 10.4 Any other relief, which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in regularisation order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-1), it is specifically mentioned that services of the petitioner’s father namely Chand Ram Kahra, whose name finds place at serial No.129, has been regularised on the post of Timekeeper. Even then the respondent authorities ignoring the aforesaid fact has rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, which is not only illegal but shows mala fide intention of the respondent authorities. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after sad demise of his father, who was the sole earning member of the petitioner’s family. After the death of petitioner’s father, they are facing financial crisis. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualification and criteria for compassionate appointment but the respondent authorities did not consider his case and rejected the same on false and frivolous ground. Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground for sad demise of his father who was regular employee of respondent authorities. 4. Learned counsel for State/respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as per the Circular dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure R/3) issued by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Department of General Administration, Raipur, the family members of the employee working as daily wager are not entitled for compassionate appointment, as such, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Learned counsel also submits that the instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed a copy of regularisation order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/1), which clearly exhibits the fact that name of petitioner’s father namely Chand Ram Kahra was at serial No.129. It is an admitted position in the case that the petitioner’s father namely Chandram Kahra died on 08.06.2014 during the employment. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed a copy of regularisation order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/1), which clearly exhibits the fact that name of petitioner’s father namely Chand Ram Kahra was at serial No.129. It is an admitted position in the case that the petitioner’s father namely Chandram Kahra died on 08.06.2014 during the employment. The rejection of petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment mainly rests on the ground that as per order regularisation order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/1), the employees had to submits Higher Secondary Examination (10+2) examination certificate but the petitioner’s father did not submit the requisite qualification certificate and as he was working as daily wager employee, therefore, in view of circular dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure R/3), the family members of the employee working as daily wager are not entitled for compassionate appointment. The respondent authorities have also filed a copy of letter dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure R/2) of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Kawrdha, regarding regularisation of the petitioner’s father. In the said letter, the petitioner’s father name was recommended for regularisation on the post of Process Server and by letter dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure R/2-A), the case of the petitioner’s father was forwarded to Superintending Engineer, Shivnath Mandal, Durg, for further action. Thus, it is clear from letter dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/1) that till the death of petitioner’s father namely Chandram Kahra, despite recommendation for regularisation, no order on his application for regularisation on the post of Process Server was issued by the respondent authorities and after his death, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on this ground that as per Circular dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure R/3), he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 7. According to the regularisation letter dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner’s father was appointed on 01.02.1982 and worked till his death i.e. on 08.06.2014. This Court vide order dated 03.07.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No.2241/2015, had also directed the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment by speaking order. 7. According to the regularisation letter dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner’s father was appointed on 01.02.1982 and worked till his death i.e. on 08.06.2014. This Court vide order dated 03.07.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No.2241/2015, had also directed the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment by speaking order. It is apparent that the petitioner’s father had been working in the respondent department for more than 30 years and after considering/recommending his name for regularisation and after recommendation on the application of petitioner’s father for regularisation on the post of Process Server, the respondent authorities did not turn up to regularise the services of the petitioner’s father during his life time, as such, it is at the fault of the respondent authorities and not at the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the instant petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground within two months from the receipt of copy of this order.