1 2025:CGHC:42201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2960 of 2023 1 - Smt. Jayanti Bai Bhatpahri W/o Late Shri Bhav Singh Bhatpahri Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Bhatapara Kodebod Tehsil Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Khushboo Bhatpahri D/o Late Shri Bhav Singh Bhatpahri Aged About 15 Years Through The Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Jayanti Bai Bhatpahri W/o Late Shrit Bhav Singh Bhatpahri Aged About- 32 Years. R/o Village- Bhatapara Kodebod Tehsil Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Karina Bhatpahri D/o Late Shri Bhav Singh Bhatpahri Aged About 13 Years Through The Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Jayanti Bai Bhatpahri W/o Late Shrit Bhav Singh Bhatpahri Aged About- 32 Years. R/o Village- Bhatapara Kodebod Tehsil Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Damesh Bhatpahri S/o Late Shri Bhav Singh Bhatpahri Aged About 10 Years Through The Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Jayanti Bai Bhatpahri W/o Late Shrit Bhav Singh Bhatpahri Aged About- 32 Years. R/o Village- Bhatapara Kodebod Tehsil Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tehsildar Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Sunita Kosariya W/o Shri Bhushan Kosariya Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Bhatapara Kodebod, P. H. No. 31, Tehsil Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned orders of the petitioner. 10.2 This Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondent no. 03 for quashing the impugned order, dt. 18/04/2023 [Annexure-P/1] & order and certificate, dt. 3 25/03/2022 [Annexure-P/3) and (Annexure-P/4]. 10.3 Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper. 10.4 The cost of the petition may kindly be allowed.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 18/04/2023, whereby the order passed by respondent No. 04 has been affirmed is an arbitrary and contrary manner. The petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased employee Smt. Nagina Bai, who was serving as a Safai Karmchari and died in harness on 28/06/2021. After her demise, respondent No. 05, the married daughter of late Smt. Nagina Bai, filed an application before respondent No. 04 seeking compassionate appointment and a dependent certificate without impleading the petitioners as parties. The petitioners raised objections against the said application, however, without considering their objections, respondent No. 04 passed an order in favour of respondent No. 05. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No. 03 against the said order, along with an interim application and affidavit relying upon various grounds and circulars issued by the State Government. Despite this, respondent No. 03 has passed the impugned order in an arbitrary and contrary manner, which is liable to be quashed. Hence, the present petition. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the present petition has been filed with a limited prayer, namely, that the case of the petitioner may be duly considered by the respondent authorities for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with the prevailing rules, policies and settled principles of law. It is urged that the petitioner, being the legal heir of the deceased government servant, who unfortunately passed away while in service, has been left in a state of financial hardship and is wholly dependent upon such relief for sustenance. The object of compassionate appointment is not to provide employment as a matter of right, but to extend timely assistance to the bereaved family to tide over the sudden crisis arising out of the untimely demise of the sole breadwinner. In the present case, the petitioner’s claim is squarely covered under the applicable scheme, and therefore, a direction is sought that the authorities may be directed to examine her application with fairness and without any delay, so as to ensure that the benevolent object underlying the scheme of compassionate appointment is not frustrated. 4. On the learned counsel for respondent No. 5, at the very outset, submits that the petition is misconceived, premature and devoid of merit. He further submits that the petitioners are entitled to compassionate appointment as claimed. The answering 5 respondent is the daughter of the deceased employee, namely late Smt. Nagina Bai, who died in harness on 28.06.2021, and being a dependent daughter, she is duly entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment in accordance with the prevailing policy. In this regard, the competent authority, after examining the application and objections, issued a dependency certificate on 25.08.2022 strictly in accordance with law. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by respondent No. 3 on 18.04.2023, affirming the order of respondent No. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any valid ground for interference or to establish their entitlement to compassionate appointment. The circular relied upon by the petitioners themselves recognizes that even a married daughter is eligible under the compassionate appointment policy. The petitioners have also not challenged any order denying retiral benefits, and as such, their petition is wholly premature and liable to be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while adopting and fully supporting the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 5, submitted that the arguments put forth are well-founded in law as well as on facts. It was further urged that the claims made by the petitioners are misconceived, untenable, and devoid of merit, and therefore, the instant petition 6 does not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court. The State counsel thus prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the facts as pleaded in the petition, it is apparent that the petitioner is the second wife of the son of the deceased employee, namely Smt. Nagina Bai. A bare perusal of the record makes it clear that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of compassionate appointment, since her claim is not as a direct legal heir of the deceased employee, but only through her marital relationship with the son of the deceased. Compassionate appointment, being an exception to the general rule of recruitment, can only be granted strictly in accordance with the governing rules and policy, and such benefit cannot be extended to persons who are not legally entitled. In the present case, the entitlement of the petitioner does not fall within the permissible category as recognized under law. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter and considering the issue at the threshold itself, the petition is held to be misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat