ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs : “(i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash/set-aside the letter/order dated 27/04/2016 passed by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure P/6). (ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents' authority to consider the case and grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the father of the petitioner namely Late Laleshwar was died on 24/03/2004 due to harness, while working on the post of the Assistant Teacher with respondent department. At the time of his death the petitioner herein was minor. After death there was a succession dispute between the mother of the petitioner and children of Late Laleshwar with Aasbati, who was the first wife of Late Laleshwar. The matter travel upto this High Court, and vide order dated 14/07/2008, the Hon'ble Court was please to allow the Civil Revision No. 26/2007 and held that petitioner and others are entitle for all death benefits of Late Laleshwar except mother of the petitioner name Pushpa Bai. Immediately after the death of the petitioner's father, petitioner's mother Pushpa Bai moved an application on 18/06/2004 for compassionate appointment. This application was kept pending before the respondents, thereafter another application was demanded by the respondent authority. 3. The petitioner moved another application to the respondents' authority on 27/11/2008, but the same was rejected on the ground of delay on 03/08/2009, stating that the application of the petitioner's mother is time barred, which is per se illegal from the application (Annexure P/2), it is clear that application for compassionate appointment was filed well within time. That thereafter grand mother of the petitioner move an application for compassionate appointment to petitioner's mother or to petitioner. Vide order dated 18/11/2011, the respondent no. 2 had rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he is minor and further application of the petitioner was not received. That thereafter grand mother of the petitioner move an application for compassionate appointment to petitioner's mother or to petitioner. Vide order dated 18/11/2011, the respondent no. 2 had rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he is minor and further application of the petitioner was not received. In the meanwhile, the mother and grand mother of the petitioner had filed many applications to the respondents' authority, which had not been decided by the respondents' authority and kept pending, which is not filed in the present petition, and will be filed in case of any exigency arises. Thereafter, the petitioner attained the age of majority and at the time of filing the present writ petition he was studying in the 1st year of Bachelor of Arts, the petitioner moved an application to the respondent authority for compassionate appointment. The application of the petitioner was rejected by respondent no.4 on the ground that petitioner is the son of second wife, hence is not entitle for compassionate appointment, hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action and order of respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and with the malafide intention. The respondent authority are not considering the case for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. That respondent are adopting discriminatory approach with the petitioner. The application of the petitioner was illegally rejected by respondent No.4 on the ground that petitioner is son of second wife, hence is not entitle for compassionate appointment. This finding is totally against the law and the provision of the section 21 explanation (a) (b) and section 8 and 10 of Hindu Succession Act and against the section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The order dated 27/04/2016 is totally against the order of this Court (Annexure P/1) and liable to be set-aside. The case of the petitioner ought to have been considered as per the policy by the respondents. As far as the vacancy is concern, the petitioner is ready to accept any Job at any level. 5. The application of the petitioner's mother was moved well within time i.e. in the year 2004, but same was rejected after 5 years on the ground of delay and thereafter respondent no.2 has given the finding that petitioner is minor and application was not filed by the petitioner, hence respondent no. 5. The application of the petitioner's mother was moved well within time i.e. in the year 2004, but same was rejected after 5 years on the ground of delay and thereafter respondent no.2 has given the finding that petitioner is minor and application was not filed by the petitioner, hence respondent no. 2 rejected in the year 2011 and thereafter on 27/04/2016, the application of the petitioner has been rejected, hence the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27/04/2016, which is the last order by the respondents and on an erroneous ground the application is rejected which is liable to be set-aside. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in the matter of “Smt. Pushpa Bai & others v. Aasbati & another” Civil Revision No. 26/2007, decided on 14.07.2008. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that the case of petitioner is governed by the policy of the State Government dealing with the compassionate appointment dated 10th June, 2003, wherein there is no provision of granting compassionate appointment to a person who is the son of second wife of a government servant, therefore, the petitioner being the son of second wife, is not entitled for compassionate appointment as per the policy dated 10th June, 2003 (ANNEXURE R-1). The deceased employee Laleshwar Nag expired on 24/03/2004 and the claim for compassionate appointment was made by the mother of the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Nag, which was rejected vide order dated 30/08/2009, but the same was never challenged by the mother of the petitioner. 7. The application of the petitioner has been filed after more than 12 years of the death of his father. Vide impugned order dated 27/04/2016, the application of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that this Court in order dated 14/07/2008 did not pass any order in respect of compassionate appointment. As per Rule 22 sub-rule 1 of Chhattisgarh Civil Service Conduct Rule, 1965 a government servant, whose wife is living, cannot perform second marriage without prior permission of the government and in the present case the deceased employee Laleshwar Nag without the knowledge of department had performed the second marriage and thus violated the aforesaid rule. 8. As per Rule 22 sub-rule 1 of Chhattisgarh Civil Service Conduct Rule, 1965 a government servant, whose wife is living, cannot perform second marriage without prior permission of the government and in the present case the deceased employee Laleshwar Nag without the knowledge of department had performed the second marriage and thus violated the aforesaid rule. 8. The purpose of giving compassionate appointment to a dependent of deceased government servant in harness is to help the family of the deceased government employee to tie over the same immediate financial crises, which arises due to certain demise of the bread earner of the family. Laleshwar Nag was died on 24/03/2004 and the claim for compassionate appointment of mother of petitioner was rejected way back in the year 2011. There is inordinate delay in approaching this Court, and thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contention, counsel for the respondents/State placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others”, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 44. 9. I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 10. It is not disputed in this case that Laleshwar Nag was died on 24.03.2004 and the application of petitioner’s mother for providing compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents on the ground that she is second wife of deceased employee, thereafter, when the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment, the same has been dismissed by the respondents by the impugned order (Annexure P/6) with the following terms : 11. Rule 3(1) of policy of the State Government dated 10th June, 2003 provides as under : 12. This Court while deciding the issue in the matter of “Smt. Pushpa Bai” (supra) in para 5 held as under : “5. Having considered the rival submissions, I have perused the record. In Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and others (supra), the Supreme Court has held that even if a government servant has contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, children borne out of such second marriage would still be legitimate though the second marriage itself would be void. The Court, therefore, went on to hold that such children, but not the second wife, would be entitled to the pension. The Court, therefore, went on to hold that such children, but not the second wife, would be entitled to the pension. In the present case, since the deceased nominated the applicant No.2, Smt. Prem Bai, i.e. his mother and not the de facto second wife, i.e., Smt. Pushpa Bai, the applicant No.1 for receiving the death benefits the case law of Vidhyadhary and others vs. Sukhrana Bai and others (supra) is distinguishable. However, since applicants No.3 to 5 are admittedly legitimate children of the deceased and Smt. Prem Bai, i.e., the mother of the deceased are the CIass-1 heirs under Section 8(a) and Rule 2 of Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act and Smt. Prem Bai is the nominee of the deceased, both the Courts below have acted illegally in refusing to grant a succession certificate in their favour. The direction given by the learned District Judge that Smt. Prem Bai was entitled only to receive her share is also completely vague in nature.” 13. This Court, in the operative para, passed order in favour of petitioner Rewati Raman Nag, who was minor at the relevant point of time. In the policy of State Government, it is nowhere mentioned that only legitimate child would be entitled for compensation. Rule 3 only held- ¼d½ fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh fo/kok] ¼[k½ iq=] vFkok ¼x½ vfookfgr iq=h . The respondent authorities did not consider this fact that petitioner is son of deceased employee Laleshwar Nag and only on this ground the application of his mother was denied and also rejected the application of petitioner, therefore, this order is not sustainable. 14. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment as son of the deceased employee Laleshwar Nag. The respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per the policy of the State Government, dated 10th of June, 2003, if he fulfills all other conditions, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.