1 2025:CGHC:43060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1961 of 2023 1 - Rahul Kumar Rajput S/o Late Shri Ashwani Kumar Rajput Aged About 31 Years Working As Peon, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District- Durg, R/o Qr. No. 5/f, Streat No. 16, Sector- 2 Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai Through Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 28/04/2022, 16/11/2022 (Annexure P-6) and consider the case of the petitioner for granting appointment on the post of Class III from the date 07/02/2012 by modifying the appointment order of the petitioner. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioners including the cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the father of the petitioner namely Late Ashwani Kumar Rajput was working as a Pump Operator, a Class-IV employee under the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.), and unfortunately died in harness on 3 04.12.2011, whereafter the petitioner, being eligible, submitted his application for compassionate appointment before respondent No. 3, that the petitioner is duly qualified, having passed Higher Secondary (Class-12) and completed computer courses, and as per Clause 12 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, a dependent of a deceased Class-IV employee possessing the requisite qualification is entitled to be considered for appointment on a Class-III post, and during the years 2012 to 2014, several posts of Class-III, including Assistant Grade-III, were lying vacant under respondent no. 3, yet in complete disregard to Clause 7(3) and Clause 12 of the policy as well as ignoring the petitioner’s qualification and the availability of vacancies, respondent No. 3, vide order dated 07.02.2012, arbitrarily appointed the petitioner only on the post of Peon, a Class-IV post, whereas similarly situated persons were appointed to Class-III posts on compassionate grounds, that the petitioner, aggrieved by such discriminatory action, submitted a representation in 2015 and subsequent reminders thereafter, but the same remain undecided till date and that the petitioner having been unjustly relegated to a Class-IV post despite being otherwise entitled to Class-III, the action of respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, hence the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition. 4 3. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on account of the unfortunate demise of his father, who died in harness on 04.12.2011 while serving under the respondent authority. He further submits that pursuant to such compassionate consideration, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Peon, Class-IV, however, having regard to his educational qualifications and eligibility, the petitioner is seeking his appointment against a clerical post in the establishment, which would be more suitable and commensurate with his qualification. Since the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed despite repeated representations, he has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that in matters of compassionate appointment, it is well-settled that the right to appointment cannot be claimed for a particular post as a matter of right. He further submits that the petitioner has already been duly considered and granted the benefit of compassionate appointment in accordance with the relevant rules and policies. Moreover, the petitioner is entitled to opportunities for future promotion in due course of service, and therefore, the specific prayer seeking appointment to a particular 5 post, as made by the petitioner, cannot be acceded to or granted by this Hon’ble Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and taking into account that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Class-IV way back in the year 2012, it is further noted that the petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualifications and other eligibility criteria necessary for appointment to a Class-III post. In view of the foregoing, the concerned respondent authorities are hereby directed to examine and consider the case of the petitioner on its merits. Upon such consideration, if it is found that the petitioner fulfills all the requisite conditions for the higher post, the respondent authorities shall take appropriate action to either grant appointment to the petitioner in the Class-III post or promote him to the Class-III post in accordance with his entitlement under the relevant rules and regulations, ensuring that his rights and legitimate expectations are duly safeguarded. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 8. The concerned respondent authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6 9. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat