1 2025:CGHC:39712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4235 of 2025 1 - Smt. Saraswati Fekar W/o Shri Mohit Ram Fekar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mohtara, Post Office Latuwa, P.S. And Tahsil Balodabazar District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Health And Engineering, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintending Engineer Public Health And Engineering Department, Raipur Division Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Balodabazasr - Bhatapara District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer Public Health And Engineering Department, Block Balodabazar- District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Tilak Ram Fekar S/o Late Bisahu Ram Fekar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mohtara, Post Office Latuwa P.S. And Tahsil Balodabazar - District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For petitioners : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.13 11:30:08 +0530 2 08/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent authorities to take appropriate legal action on complaint of the petitioner against the respondent No. 5. for refusing to provide any assistance and maintenance amount to the petitioner and non compliance of the provision of compassionate appointment policy. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance of the petitioner in briefly is that the petitioner was claimed that her father-in-law late Bisahu Ram Fekar was working on the post of watchman and he died 18.06.2018 in harness leaving behind two sons one petitioner's husband Mohit Fekar and second son Tilak Ram Fekar (private respondent no. 5). It is further stated that the petitioner's husband Mohit Fekar who is elder son of the deceased Bisahu Ram Fekar, has deaf-dumb and hence the private respondent no. 5 has issued consent letter with the petitioner for providing assistance and maintenance amount to his elder brother Mohit Fekar and his whole family members on account of providing job after receiving compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the private respondent no. 5 has got compassionate appointment and working and performing his duty under respondent department i.e. Public Health and Engineering department, Block Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) and petitioner's mother-in- law is also getting pension on account of death of her husband. 3. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after receiving compassionate appointment, the private respondent no. 3 5 has not paying any maintenance amount and providing any assistance to his family member i.e. elder deaf-dumb brother and his family members till today, due to this, the petitioner and her family members are being mentally harassed and very difficulties economic problem for survival and also taking care of two minor children. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the concerned authorities and moved representation to the respondent authorities for taking appropriate legal action against the private respondent no. 5 for non granting any maintenance amount and non compliance of the compassionate appointment but the respondent authorities has not taken any action on claim case of the petitioner for granting maintenance amount and has not complied the circular of the compassionate appointment due to this the petitioner has deprived to get benefit of maintenance amount till today, which is completely illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that if the petitioner files a representation before the respondents No. 2 and 4, the same shall be decided in accordance with law after verification of the facts. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all relevant documents and copy of this order before the respondent No. 2 and 4 within a period of 15 days 4 from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In turn, the respondents No. 2 and 4 shall decide the representation of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner and the respondent No. 5, on its own merits as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti