1 2025:CGHC:52173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6314 of 2021 1 - Ku. Mevish Gardia D/o Shri Jagdish Gardia Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Lahraud, Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Directorate Of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional A. G. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 27/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief:- 10.1 that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of present case, from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/ quashing the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, in accordance with law. 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 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the brother of the petitioner namely Vikrant Gardia was working as Staff Nurse (male) with respondent No.1 and died in harness on 18.10.2020. He submits that though the brother of the petitioner was married and also blessed with a son, however his wife and son died in the year 2021 during Covid-19 Pendemic. As the petitioner being unmarried sister was dependent upon the income of the deceased for her survival, she moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment to the respondent. The said application was rejected vide impugned order dated 14.07.2021 (Annexure P-1). He further submits that except the petitioner, no legal heirs of the deceased employee is surviving, and the survival of the petitioner was wholly dependent upon the income of the deceased/ employee, her case should have been considered by the respondent and she should have been given a compassionate appointment. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order Annexure P-1 may be set aside. 3. Per contra, the State counsel submits that the respondent/ State has framed a policy dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure P-4), which enumerates instructions for the grant of compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased/ employee. He also contends that according to Clause 5 & 6 of the said policy, read with the circular dated 30.08.2016, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of family of the deceased/ employee. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s application is duly based upon the provision contained in the compassionate appointment policy, and a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed beyond the stipulations of that policy. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is the unmarried sister of the deceased/ employee. Furthermore, it is not controverted that the deceased/ employee Vikrant Gardia was married at the time of his death and was also blessed with a son, though it is submitted by the petitioner that the wife of the deceased died during the Covid-19 pandemic, nevertheless, according to Clause 5 & 6 of Policy of compassionate appointment, the petitioner may not fall within the category of 3 individuals entitled to compassionate appointment. For ready reference, the provisions contained in Clause 5 & 6 are quoted hereinbelow:- “5. अक उदर :- गत सय स आत प त य सय स स ए सय " # $%त &स अ( )त () अ प य प * +" प () " ए उस प- त. इस अ&0 आग (ग), (घ) ए (ड.) अ&3 य&45त +त& 06 # य 7 यग :- () गत सय स ध /ध&, () प&*/9 प&*, (ग) अ +त प&* /अ +त 9 प&* , (घ) आत ध प&* / आत 9 ध प&* ए, (ड.) आत त & प&* /आत त & 9 प&* । 6. अ सक सक क ध र अक :- ऐस सय स <=य& +" प, 7" अ +त +> (अ( ध& +> औ उस "ई प&*/प&* +A +>) त" ऐस गत सय स ( त /पत अ&स प) B ई / अ +त ब+ " अ&3 य&45त प *त +"ग ।" 6. The rejection of an application for compassionate appointment is only on the ground that for a married Government employee, the dependent mother, father, widow (wife), widower (husband), son and daughter including adopted son and daughter, widowed/ divorced daughter and daughter-in-law and for an unmarried Government employee or widower in the absence of other dependents (who does not have a son or daughter), his parents and siblings, should be entitled to compassionate appointment. From perusal of the policy and the impugned order, it is quite evident that the deceased/ employee was married, and therefore, the petitioner’s claim cannot be fall under Clause A as mentioned in the impugned order, therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.11.03 16:39:33 +0530