1 2025:CGHC:20479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8772 of 2023 1 - Smt. Pushpa Verma W/o Late Ramakant Verma Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Vatgaon, Thana- Palari,, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Distt.- Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Distt- Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat,, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Chhura, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Block- Chhura, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.05.08 12:30:32 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer. For Respective Respondent : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 05/05/2025 1. The claim of the petitioner with regard to compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner do not have the requisite qualification of B.Ed./D.Ed. and TET for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II at Government Middle School Amethi, Block Chhura, District- Gariyaband and died on 01/05/2015. He submits that the petitioner moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment according to policy contemplated in the C.G. Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2012”). He further submits that the claim of the petitioner has not been considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 2012. He further contended that the petitioner is ready to join services against Class IV posts. In the rules also there is no provision that the dependent of the deceased Shiksha 3 Karmis would be granted appointment only on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III; therefore, the decision taken by the State authorities that the petitioners do not have the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III is erroneous and contrary to the rules. He also contended that the service of the petitioner was not absorbed in the School Education Department and this is one of the reasons for the non-consideration of her name. It is further stated that a committee was constituted by the State Government vide Order dated 13.09.2021 to resolve the dispute with regard to the compassionate appointment of Shiksha Karmis, who died prior to the date of absorption. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose and submits that the deceased employees died prior to the date of absorption of her service and a circular was issued by the State Government to the effect that the Shiksha Karmis who died prior to the date of absorption, their dependents would get employment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III; particularly, the dependents, who have passed B.Ed./D.Ed and TET. They also submitted that the petitioners do not have the requisite qualifications; therefore, their claim has not been considered. It is contended that the petitioner was granted the opportunity to acquire the required qualification, but she failed; therefore, her claim was rejected. It is further contended that there is no provision to 4 provide employment on any other post. It is stated that according to Rule 7 of the Rules, 2012, the dependents may be provided compassionate appointment on the post of Teacher (Panchayat) only, as the sanctioned cadre was Shiksha Karmi Grade I, II, & III only. They contended that as the minimum required qualification for a Teacher is 12th, D.Ed., TET or Graduation, B.Ed and TET; therefore, the dependents cannot be appointed against any other post and no such posts are available with the department. He further argued that this petition deserve to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. The Husband of the petitioner was appointed to the posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade II. They died prior to the date of absorption while he was working on the post of Shiksha Karmis, their dependents moved applications for compassionate appointment. The claims of the petitioner has not been considered on the grounds that he do not have the requisite qualifications. 6. The services of all Teachers (Panchayat) were absorbed with the School Education Department pursuant to a notification issued on 30.06.2018 and at present posts of Shiksha Karmis are not available in the department. The petitioner has not acquired the required qualifications for the post of Shiksha 5 Karmi Grade III; therefore, he has not been provided compassionate appointment, but the fact remains that the posts of Shiksha Karmis are not available with the department; therefore, no such appointment can be provided to the petitioners, even they have the requisite qualification. 7. Looking at the facts discussed above, a decision was taken by the State Government and a committee was constituted by the General Administration Department on 13.09.2021 to resolve the dispute.Therefore, at this juncture, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the committee constituted on 13.09.2021, to resolve the dispute involved in this petition within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If so advised, the petitioner may move fresh application before the Committee within a period of 15 days. 8. The respondent authorities may take appropriate decisions with regard to the appointment of the petitioners in Class IV posts. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), this petition is hereby disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep