1 2025:CGHC:56708-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 845 of 2025 1. Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 2 In W P S No. 3605 Of 2018) 2. Additional Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Orginal Respondent No. 3 In W P S No. 3605 Of 2018) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Jagdish Chouhan S/o Late Shri Anil Chouhan Aged About 27 Years R/o Shanichari Padav, Harijan Mohalla, Ward No. 26, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Petitioner And Respondent No. 1 In W P S No. 3605 Of 2018) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.11.2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.22 12:00:06 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. And also heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Add. A.G. for the State/ respondent No. 2. 2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 3605 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by writ petitioner was allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 04.11.2025 in WA No. 787 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground for interference with the well- reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge is made out. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the father of the respondent/writ petitioner died in harness on 12.03.2005 while serving under the Municipal Corporation. The respondent, being the dependent son, applied for compassionate appointment on 27.12.2006 and again on 12.03.2008, at which point of time his mother was working only as a daily wage employee and had not been regularized. The affidavit submitted along with the application 3 clearly reflected the then existing factual position. The subsequent regularization of the respondent’s mother on 12.03.2008 cannot be construed as suppression or misrepresentation at the time of application, as the relevant consideration must be the circumstances prevailing on the date of the application and not subsequent developments. 12. It is further observed that the respondent’s appointment on compassionate grounds was made vide order dated 17.12.2008 after due verification by the competent authority, and he continued in service for a decade, discharging his duties without any complaint. The impugned cancellation order dated 23.04.2018 was passed solely on the basis of a complaint by the employees’ union, without establishing that any false or misleading statement had been made by the respondent in his affidavit at the time of application. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any deliberate act of fraud or concealment on the part of the respondent that would render his appointment void ab initio under Clause 8 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 10.06.2003. The principles laid down in Devender Kumar (supra) pertain to cases of fraud or deliberate misrepresentation, which are clearly distinguishable on facts from the present case. 13. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating these aspects in detail, rightly held that the cancellation order was unsustainable and 4 directed reinstatement of the respondent while leaving the question of arrears of salary to be considered by the competent authority. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. The compassionate appointment in question cannot be nullified merely on the basis of a subsequent change in the employment status of the respondent’s mother, particularly when no element of fraud is established. 14. Be that as it may, it is the well settled proposition of law that no appointee should be distributed after putting in service more than 3-4 years and the employee be permitted to do duties peacefully and without any sense of insecurity. (See: K.R. Mudgal and others Versus R.P. Singh and others, AIR 1986 SC 2086). In the case at hand, the writ petitioner has served the service in the Corporation for a period of about a decade. 15. Considering the same, this Court finds no ground to entertain the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. “ 4. In view of above, the present writ appeal is dismissed in terms of the order passed by this Court in WA No. 787 of 2025. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti