-1- 2025:CGHC:44448 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6598 of 2021 Smt. Naini Sahu W/o Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khamariya, Post Jevra Sirsa, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh Presently Working As Assistant Grade-II, In The office of Govt. Ayurved Chikitsalaya, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Ayurveda, Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha And Homoeopathy (Ayush) Chhattisgarh Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District Balod Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Ayurveda Adhikari Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.09. 2025 1) At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III on compassionate basis vide order dated 23.06.2021 and she has been kept on probation for three years with entitlement of 70%, 80% and 90% salary for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.03 19:40:40 +0530 -2- respectively. It is submitted that the said condition is not applicable in cases of compassionate appointment in view of the circular dated 23.02.2019. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already made representations dated 12.07.2021 and 16.07.2021 before the respondent authorities, but the same have not been decided till date. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. 3) Heard. 4) Considering the limited submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No.2, and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in an objective manner preferably within a period of 120 days. 5) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 6) With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is hereby disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Vatti