1 2025:CGHC:46624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2091 of 2022 1. Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Baburai Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o Street No. 5 Girija Niwas, Kasarihdih Dist.- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Deputy Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 11-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS directing the respondent No.2 & Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.12 14:08:04 +0530 2 3 to consider and decide the application /representation dated 12.08.2021, as early as this Hon'ble Court directs. 10.2 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice. 2) Facts of the present case are that brother of the petitioner, namely, Pramod Sahu was selected to the post of Patwari vide order dated 16.10.2019 and thereafter, he was sent for training of a period of one year. During the training period, he died on 21.04.2021 due to Covid-19 pandemic. On 18.05.2021, petitioner moved application for grant of compassionate appointment and same has been rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 22.07.2021 on the ground that the deceased was not a government servant. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was selected to the post of Patwari vide order dated 16.10.2019 and thereafter, he was sent for training of a period of one year, therefore his status was of a government servant and respondent authorities ought to have considered the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He prays to direct the respondent authorities to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that brother of petitioner was only selected to the post of Patwari but order of appointment was not issued in his favor, thus he would not fall 3 within the definition of “government servant” . He further submits that respondent authorities rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) The order issued by Collector, Rajnandgaon dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure P/2) would reveal that brother of petitioner, namely, Pramod Sahu was selected to the post of Patwari and he was sent for training of a period of one year. Pramod Sahu died on 21.04.2021 due to Covid-19 pandemic and petitioner moved application for grant of compassionate appointment on 18.05.2021 but it was rejected vide order dated 22.07.2021 on the ground that Lt. Pramod Sahu was not a government servant. 7) The Clause 3 of the Circular regarding compassionate appointment issued by State of Chhattisgarh dated 14.06.2013 defines “deceased government servant”, and it includes regular government servant working under regular / contingency / work- charged establishment who died untimely during his service period. 8) Thus, it is quit clear that only the dependents of regular government servants are entitled to get compassionate appointment. In the present case, brother of the petitioner was not a government servant as he was only selected to the post of Patwari and no appointment order was issued in his favor and he died during the currency of training period, therefore in the opinion 4 of this Court, brother of the petitioner does not fall under the definition of “government servant”, thus respondent authorities rightly rejected the claim of petitioner and no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a