1 2025:CGHC:19930 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3983 of 2020 Smt. Dipa Purena W/o Late Kishan Kumar Purena Aged About 28 Years R/o Madwa, Matiya, Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Revenue, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector (Land Records) District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 01.5.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief of compassionate appointment to be given to her on account of death of her husband namely, Kishan Kumar Purena. 3. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner is that, her husband, late Kishan Kumar Purena, was selected for undergoing training on the post of ‘Patwari’ vide Order dated 15.7.2014 (Annexure-P/2) issued by Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. Thereafter, he received training twice for six months BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.05.05 17:33:48 +0530 2 each. But prior to clearing the examination for appointment on the post of Patwari, he died in harness on 28.7.2016. After his death, an application was filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment before the Collector, Baloda Bazar, which was rejected vide Order dated 04.02.2020 (Annexure-P/1). Therefore, the petitioner has filed instant petition seeking following relief(s):- 10.1 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the respondent concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order impugned dated 4.2.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 being illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law, in the interest of justice. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent-No.2 to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, in view of Note appended in Clause- 3 of the policy/scheme applicable for compassionate appointment in the State, within the time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost of the proceedings 10.5 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner’s husband could not pass the examination after undergoing training for the post of ‘Patwari’, but he passed examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (CG VYAPAM), and was selected for the training to work as Patwari. He further submits that status of the petitioner’s husband was ‘temporary employee’, therefore, after his death, the petitioner, being wife of deceased employee, ought to have been granted 3 compassionate appointment as per Rule 3 of the Integrated Revised Instructions 2013, regarding Compassionate Appointment on the death of Government Servant during service (for short ‘Instructions 2013), but the same has been rejected vide impugned Order dated 04.02.2020 (Annexure- P/1) by respondent No.2, observing therein that, since the deceased was temporary trainee Patwari, as such he was not a regular employee, therefore, compassionate appointment could not be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel lastly submits that, since the deceased was undergoing training on the post of Patwari after passing examination conducted by VYAPAM, he had attained the status of ‘employee’ of the State Government, therefore, impugned order passed by the Collector, Baloda Bazar/respondent No.2 is perverse and illegal, hence, the petition may be allowed and relief sought for by the petitioner may be granted. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Kuntesh & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Del. 1435. 5. The State has filed its reply stating inter alia that the husband of the petitioner was not appointed as Patwari as he was only selected for Patwari training in the year 2014. Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submit that, as per the provisions of Land Records Manual Part-II- Rule 4, the candidates who have been sent for Patwari training would be given 4 opportunities to clear the examination after training and in case he/she fails to clear the examination in all 4 chances, then his/her appointment will be terminated. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was unsuccessful in his first attempt of examination, which was held in the year 2015, thereafter he was again given opportunity to appear in the examination in the year 2016. Though he participated in that examination, but prior to declaration of result, unfortunately he died on 28.7.2016. He was 4 unsuccessful in the second examination also. Learned counsel further submits that as per Rule 3 of the Instructions 2013, compassionate appointed can be given to the dependent member of the family of the deceased employee, who was posted as regular employee. But in the instant case, the deceased was not posted as regular employee and even he did not clear examination for appointment on the post of Patwari, therefore, he was not appointed on the post of ‘Patwari’, thus, respondent No.2 has not committed any mistake while rejecting the application of the petitioner, hence, this petition is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As per the petitioner herself, vide Order dated 15.7.2014 (Annexure- P/2), the deceased was selected for Patwari training in the year 2014. Thereafter, though he had taken Patwari training from Patwari Training Institute, Raipur, but he could not clear the examination as provided in the Land Records Manual Part-II, therefore, he was not appointed on the post of Patwari, rather his status was only that of a “trainee”, thus he was not a regular employee of the respondent. 8. Rule 3 of the Instructions 2013 provides as under:- “3. दिवंगत शासकीय सेवक से तात्पय - दिवंगत शासकीय सेवक से तात्पय ऐसे दियदित शासकीय सेवक से है, जो दियदित शासकीय सेवक के रूप ें कायरत रहा हो अथवा आकቦኌ क सेवा/कायभारिरत थापा का दियदित रूप से कायरत कचारी रहा हो एवं सेवाकाल के ौरा जिजसका असायियक दिध/आत्हत्या ्ቛारा हो गया हो ।" 9. Perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that compassionate appointed can be granted to the dependent family members of those deceased employees, 5 who were holding regular post or working as contingency/work charged establishment. But in the instant case, status of the petitioner was not a regular employee, rather he was under training on the post of Patwari. Even he could not clear the examination for appointment on the said post. 10. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succor to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285, has clearly observed that no direction contrary to the terms of the policy can be issued and consideration of application for compassionate appointment has to be made only in accordance with the terms of the policy applicable for grant of compassionate appointment, otherwise, it would amount to rewriting the terms of the policy which has been issued by the Government for compassionate appointment. 12. In the matter of Central Bank of India vs. Nitin 2022, SCC OnLine SC 1873, the Supreme Court has held that consideration for compassionate appointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased employee. 13. In the instant case, undisputedly, the deceased employee was not a regular employee of respondent department, rather he was only selected for Patwari training, even he could not pass two examinations after his training, therefore, having considered the Rule 3 of the Instructions 2013 for 6 compassionate appointment, and judgment rendered by the Apex Court with regard to granting of compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with applicable rules. As discussed above, the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Instructions 2013, therefore, the petitioner who is wife of the deceased Kishan Kumar Purena, is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, therefore, the same deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 14. In the case of Kuntesh (supra), relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, the deceased employee was working for long years, but in the instant case, the petitioner’s husband had worked only for about one year, that too as a trainee. Therefore, facts of the case in hand is not similar to that of the case referred by the learned counsel, hence, it is not helpful to him in the instant case. 15. In view of the above, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. 16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge Bini