1 2025:CGHC:17428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 36 of 2025 1 - Jyoti Sahu D/o Late Shri Rajendra Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 1852/kh, Audyogik Nagar, Ward No. 18, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.). Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Through His Secretary, Head Office Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Head Office Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Mrs. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 16/04/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 15/03/2024 (Annexure-P/5), whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents’ authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment as deceased employee Late Rajendra Sahu, who is father of the petitioner, was RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.16 17:13:15 +0530 2 working as peon with respondents’ department and died during his service tenure on 17/09/2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is dependent daughter of late Late Rajendra Sahu (deceased employee) who died during his service tenure on 17/09/2016. The petitioner is entitle for compassionate appointment as she is one of the dependent family member of the deceased employee. He further submits that the District Marketing Officer, District Durg has also issued a certificate and recommendation for grant of appointment to the petitioner, however, vide Annexure-P/5, the respondents’ authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that sisters of the petitioners namely Archana Sahu and Kalpana Sahu have raised objection to the claim of the petitioner. He would submit that though they are objecting the claim of the petitioner, but they have never applied for compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that on the last date of hearing on 01/04/2025, there was a direction from this Court to the respondents’ authorities to file an affidavit stating therein whether the sisters of the petitioner namely Kaplana Sahu and Archana Sahu have submitted any application seeking grant of compassionate appointment or not and also to clarify that whether any policy is there prohibiting consideration of application for grant of compassionate appointment, if someone has objected to the said application although he/she is not an applicant to the said compassionate appointment. Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit has been filed by Deputy Manager (Establishment), 3 Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited stating therein that sisters of the petitioner namely Kalpana Sahu and Archana Sahu are raising objection to the application submitted by the petitioner. In the affidavit, it has also been stated that as per Clause 15 (13) read with Appendix 2 of the Policy of the State Govt., a declaration of the applicant for proper maintenance of the dependent family members is required for grant of compassionate appointment, whereas, the petitioner has not submitted any declaration/undertaking as required under Clause 15 (13) read with Appendix 2 of the Policy. Hence, in absence of the said declaration, it is not possible for them to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. Replying to the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this reason had never been informed to the petitioner before and it is the first time, when this Court has asked the respondents to file an affidavit, the said fact has been disclosed. He submits that if it is a issue involved in consideration of the claim of the petition, then this Writ Petition may be disposed of with a liberty/direction to the petitioner to submit such declaration/undertaking as required under Clause 15 (13) read with Appendix 2 of the Policy and in case of submitting such declaration/undertaking by the petitioner, the respondents’ authorities may be directed to consider the same and pass necessary order for grant of compassionate appointment as per the prescribed policy. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Writ Petition. 6. From the submission of the respondent’s authorities as well as the 4 affidavit filed by them, it is apparent that they have taken a plea that there is requirement of submission of declaration/undertaking as required under Clause 15 (13) read with Appendix 2 of the Policy of the State Govt. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has never been informed about such requirement by the respondents’ authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to submit an application of both requirement prescribed under Clause 15 (13) read with Appendix 2 of the Policy by submitting a declaration that she is dependent of the family members of the deceased employee. In case, the petitioner approaches to the respondents’ authorities and file such declaration within a period of 15 days from today, the respondents’ authorities are directed to consider the same in accordance with the policy and pass necessary speaking and reasoned order for grant of compassionate appointment within a further period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul