1 2025:CGHC:14313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4127 of 2018  Ku. Jyoti @ Laxmi Sahu D/o Late Dhruw Kumar Sahu, Aged About 21 Years R/o Kududand, Near Pump House, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, R.D.A. Bhavan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25. 03.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner’s cases. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.26 10:27:16 +0530 2 petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in the Respondent department and also consider for payment of dues amount of her father. 10.3 Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also be passed. 10.4 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 2. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the father of the petitioner was working as a Class IV employee under respondent No. 3; he died in harness on 29.01.2018. The petitioner moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment on 31.02.2018, but her claim has not been considered yet. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as her father was a regular employee under respondent No. 3. He would further submit that according to the policy dated 14.06.2013, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment. He would also submit that a further direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to make payment of terminal dues to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that in the service records, the mother of the petitioner was shown as a nominee, and therefore, the terminal benefits have already been granted to her. She would further submit that with regard to compassionate appointment, an appropriate decision would be taken by the respondent authorities. 5. Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. 3 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Ms. Agrawal, the claim with regard to terminal benefit is hereby rejected. 8. As the application of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment is still pending consideration before respondent No. 3, the authority concerned is directed to decide the application strictly in accordance with the law, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant