1 2025:CGHC:49700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6686 of 2021 1 - Tulesh Sahu S/o Late Sushil Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Santoshi Nagar, Besides Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Gad, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Raipur Development Authority Bhakta Mata Karma Commercial Complex, 2nd Floor, G.E.Road, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf on behalf of Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate For State / Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 06/10/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : 10.1 That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ & Quash the impugned Instruction order dated 25.08.2021 & declare the same ineffective against the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased 2 to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to appointment the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any post. 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted also. 2. Facts which emerges in this case is that the petitioner is the Son of the deceased Late Sushil Kumar Sahu who was a Assistant Pumpman in Raipur Development Authority/Respondent No.2. The Father of the petitioner was on covid duty, infected and unfortunately had passed away was 30.04.2021 due to covid 19. The petitioner being the Son of the deceased government employee applied for the Compassionate Appointment where he was denied of his rights to get a employment under the Compassionate Appointment. After writing several request letters to the concerned authorities, the impugned order dated 25.08.2021 was issued stating that the there is no vacancy of Pump man available therefore cannot be given or allowed to get the benefit under the Compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner father was working with the respondent No. 2 as Assistant Pumpman and he was regularized on the said post under the Work charged Contingency establishment and was being paid salary of Rs. 2610-60-3150-65-3540 vide order dated 28.02.2009 (Annexure P-2). He submits that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 13.04.2021 and the petitioner made an application for considering his case for appointment on compassionate ground but the same was rejected vide impugned communication dated 25.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) indicating that in the set up of work charge establishment no post of Assistant Pumpman is lying vacant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if no post of Assistant Pumpman in the set up of work charge establishment is available, the 3 respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner on any other post on compassionate ground for which the petitioner was eligible and qualified. Therefore, she submits that the writ petition may be allowed and the relief as claimed may be granted. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that though return has not been filed by the respondent from 2021 however, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) indicates that as there was no vacant post of Assistant Pumpman in the work charge establishment of the respondent No. 2, the case of the petitioner for appointment of compassionate ground was closed. He submits that until and unless there is a vacant sanctioned post for consideration of the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Shadangi, submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner father was working as Assistant Pumpman with respondent No. 2 under the work charge establishment. He was being paid regular pay scale. From 2009 to 2021 and continued to work with the respondent No. 2. It appears that in the covid pandemic, he died on 13.04.2021. The rejection of the petitioner claim on appointment of compassionate ground is only because there is no vacant post of Assistant Pumpman in the work charge establishment. This Court failed to appreciates this reason assigned by the respondent No. 2. Of course the compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of appointment it is a departure from regular mode of appointment but the same flow from the policy made in this regard. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to ensure that after the sudden demise of the bread winner of the family, the family may not suffer and would be able to survive. It is not a case that the application was made belatedly by the 4 petitioner. In order to show compassion, the respondent No. 2 could have considered the case of the petitioner on any other vacant post for which the petitioner would have been qualified or eligible. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition and directs the respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on any other suitable post for which the petitioner is qualified or eligible within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan