1 2025:CGHC:52539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6568 of 2021 Smt. Arti D/o Late Rameshwar Premi, aged About 27 years W/o Bhawan Kumar Ratre, R/o Village Tundra, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Abhishek Singh, PL For R 2 and 3 : Smt. Shailja Shukla, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board passed on 28.10.2025 The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records from the respondents. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure P-1) and further be 2 pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, in accordance with rules. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Facts in short: Petitioner’s father namely Rameshwar Premi (henceforth referred to as deceased/employee) who was working as Panchayat Secretary at Gram Panchayat, Gadhabhata, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara died in harness on 19.10.2018. After the death of the deceased/employee, his son Gajendra Premi applied for compassionate appointment but as he was not having essential educational qualification, respondent No.3 extended the time by five years enabling him to acquire the said qualification. Subsequently on 21.08.2019 the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. However, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure P-1, which according to the petitioner was a rejection order) written to respondent No.3 sought certain documents. Clause 2 of the said letter also mentions that the petitioner being the married daughter of the deceased employee is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. It is this letter which is under challenge in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as son of the deceased/employee was not having the requisite qualification, the petitioner being the married daughter of the deceased/employee is entitled for compassionate appointment, and therefore, the impugned order rejecting her application for that purpose is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents support the order impugned and submit that son of the deceased/employee had made an application for compassionate appointment but as he was not having requisite qualification for the same, time for acquiring the same was extended and therefore right of the petitioner would not accrue for compassionate appointment. Apart from that, it is submitted that the document of Annexure P-1 is not a rejection order, rather it is just a communication made by the Chief Executive officer, Jila Panchayat, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara to Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhataparaby by which certain documents were sought for, and therefore, this petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. What is under challenge in this petition is the document of Annexure P- 1, which is a communication between respondents No. 2 and 3, according to which application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been considered but certain documents were lacking in it. Clause 1 of the said communication indicates that the application of the petitioner did not accompany the consent of other family members on affidavit for compassionate appointment to her as well as the photocopy of the Adhar Card. Clause 2 of the said communication reveals that the petitioner is a married lady and for that it is not possible to give compassionate appointment to her. Clause 2 of the communication further says that a letter dated 24.09.2019 was already issued in respect of the son of the deceased/employee namely Gajendra Premi asking him to acquire essential educational qualification for compassionate appointment. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade this Court that by the document of 4 Annexure P-1 the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected yet the said document does not reflect the same. However, clause 2 of the document of Annexure P-1 shows that the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered as she is a married lady, which appears to be misconceived and against the settled legal position in the case of Smt. Sarojni Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2015 SCC Online Chh. 395 and the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by this Court in the matter of Mamta Rani Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS 2412/2024. Being so, this condition contained in clause 2 of the document of Annexure P-1 would not come in the way of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment being given to her. 7. However, the petitioner is directed to submit necessary documents such as the consent of her family members on oath, photocopy of Adhar Card etc as per the clause 2 of the document of Annexure P-1, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On that being done, the respondents No. 2 and 3 shall consider and decide the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment after hearing the stakeholders such as brother of the petitioner namely Gajendra Premi, within a further period of 120 days of receiving the necessary documents. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.10.29 16:53:36 +0530