1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5898 of 2023 1 - Bhushan Chandra Meshram S/o- Let Netram Meshram Aged About 39 Years R/o- Nagar Panchayat Arjunda, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Gunderdehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director Public Education, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sakib Ahmed, P.L. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12.01.2026 1. The present petition is being filed as the respondents have willfully failed to comply with the clear directions issued by the Deputy VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Secretary, Chief Minister Secretariat, Raipur (C.G.), and have not considered the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment for the last about ten years. Despite repeated representations and directions from competent authorities, no action has been taken, resulting in arbitrariness, administrative inaction, and violation of the petitioner’s legal and constitutional rights, leaving the petitioner with no efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may be pleased be kind enough in calling the records of the petitioner's case 10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to commanding the respondent,. 10.3 That the respondents may kindly be commanded that to compassionate appointment of present petitioner as per Annexure. 10.4 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that The father of the petitioner, late Shri Netram Meshram, was working as an Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Budhanpara (Gunderdehi). He died in the year 3 1997 while in service. Upon his death, the elder brother of the petitioner, namely Shri Harish Meshram, was granted compassionate appointment and was posted on the post of Shiksha Karmi Varsh–III. Unfortunately, the family again suffered a tragedy when the brother of the petitioner, late Shri Harish Meshram, died on 04.07.2013 while in service. After his death, the petitioner and his mother were entirely dependent upon the income of the deceased brother, and the financial condition of the family deteriorated drastically. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities. It is pertinent to mention that the widow of late Harish Meshram, namely Smt. Gitanjali Meshram, is presently posted as a Panchayat Teacher and has solemnized a second marriage. As such, she is no longer a dependent or a member of the petitioner’s family. The respondent No. 4, after due consideration, forwarded the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 28.11.2017. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary, Chief Minister Secretariat, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), issued a letter dated 07.03.2019 to respondent No. 1 directing consideration of the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment. Despite the above, no action was taken by the respondents. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 27.01.2023 before the District Education Officer, Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.), and another representation dated 18.07.2023 before the Chief 4 Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.). However, till date, the respondents have failed to decide or act upon the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is the brother of the deceased and that the deceased’s sister-in-law, namely Smt. Gitanjali Mishra, is working as a Panchayat Teacher. On this basis, relying upon the circular of the State Government governing compassionate appointments, it has been held that since one member of the family is already in government service, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that after the death of the deceased, namely Late Harish Mehshram, his widow Smt. Gitanjali Mishra has remarried and is presently living separately. Therefore, her employment cannot be treated as a disqualification for the purpose of considering the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, and the rejection of the application on this ground is illegal and unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that they are governed by the circular issued by the State Government and, according to the said circular, brothers are not entitled to be granted compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that since the wife of the deceased, who happens to be the sister-in- 5 law of the present petitioner, is working as a government servant, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of compassionate appointment on both these grounds. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon careful perusal of the record as well as the relevant circular, it is evident that the petitioner, being the brother of the deceased employee, is not eligible for compassionate appointment in view of paragraph 5 of the circular. Furthermore, since the sister-in-law of the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased, is working as a government servant, the petitioner is also not entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of clause 6 of the said circular. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha