1 2025:CGHC:60119 NAFR WPS No. 11229 of 2025 • Nilesh Shrivas S/o Late Mohan Lal Shrivas, Aged About 34 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11299 of 2025 • Sheikh Amin Ullah S/o Late Navi Ullah Aged About 36 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 2 WPS No. 11237 of 2025 • Smt. Neeta Thakur W/o Shri Manharan Lal Thakur, Aged About 46 Years Working In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11584 of 2025 • Mohd. Yunus W/o Late Shri Sallu Sultan Aged About 32 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2. The Director, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 3. The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur Dist. Bilaspur C.G. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11755 of 2025 • Smt. Geeta Shrivas W/o Late Dinesh Shrivas Aged About 49 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11805 of 2025 • Smt. Meena Pal W/o Late Shri Vijay Gopal Aged About 53 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Nagariya Prashan Avam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11811 of 2025 • Smt. Hasina Bano W/o Late Sheikh Subrati Aged About 49 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 4 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Nagariya Prashan Avam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11822 of 2025 • Pradeep Baghel S/o Late Ramadhin Aged About 46 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Nagariya Prashan Avam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11429 of 2025 • Smt. Rajani Gupta W/o Late Shri Ramrakshit Gupta Aged About 40 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Tah. And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) 5 WPS No. 11883 of 2025 • Mohd. Yunus Khan S/o Late Shri Idarsi Khan Aged About 41 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G) 2. The Director Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G) 3. The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through, Its Commissioner, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11457 of 2025 • Smt. Annpurna Soni W/o Late Mahesh Soni Aged About 51 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11497 of 2025 • Smt. Rano Alias Chhamta W/o Late Suresh, Aged About 49 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 2. The Director, Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State. : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini and Ms. Anuja Sharma, PL For respondent No.3 Municipal Corporation : Ms. S.S. Baghel, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 10/12/2025 1. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in bunch of these writ petition, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 11-9-2025 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner’s compassionate appointment granted vide order dated 10-1-2025 has been canceled on the ground that the approval has been not been granted by the State Government. 3. Brief description of each case of the writ petition is given in table format. Sl. No. WPS No. Name of the petitioner Post held Date of appointment Date of termination 1. 11229/2025 Nilesh Shrivas Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 2. 11497/2025 Smt. Rano alias Chhamta Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 7 3. 11237/2025 Smt. Neeta Thakur Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 4. 11457/2025 Smt. Annapurna Soni Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 5. 11584/2025 Mohd. Yunus Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 6. 11755/2025 Smt. Geeta Shrivas Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 7. 11805/2025 Smt. Meena Pal Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 8. 11811/2025 Smt. Hasina Bano Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 9. 11822/2025 Pradeep Baghel Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 10. 11299/2025 Sheikh Amin Ullah Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 11. 11429/2025 Smt. Rajani Gupta Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 12. 11883/2025 Mohd. Yunus Khan Peon 10-1-2025 11-9-2025 4. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that the bunch of these writ petitions are squarely covered by the order dated 18-11-2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 12389 of 2025 ( Jaichand Sarthi vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) wherein this Court has passed the following order. “4.This Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 directed the Director, Urban Administration and Development to file affidavit. In pursuance of the direction, the Director has filed affidavit wherein he has stated in paragraph 7 and 8 as under’ 7. The Urban Administration and Development Department received a total of 96 cases of compassionate appointments from urban bodies, ranging from 3 to 5 years in duration. These cases were examined and forwarded to the Administration Department. Later, after approval from the General Administration 8 Department, 29 cases were approved. 8. For post-facto approval, letter No. Establishment/01/Compassionate Appointment/2025/14931 dated 08.01.2025, was received from the Municipal Corporation, Korba. There is no provision for post- facto approval in the General Administration Department’s circular dated 14.06.2013. Head of the Department is not the competent authority to grant such approval. The competent authority for compassionate appointment is the concerned Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. 5. From a bare perusal of the affidavit, it is evident that the Director has assigned no reason whatsoever for denying approval. Such absence of reasoning reflects arbitrariness and highhandedness on the part of the authorities, which has the effect of defeating the lawful claim accrued in favour of the petitioner. 6.It is a well-settled proposition of law that compassionate appointment must be considered strictly in terms of the policy framed by the State Government. This Court cannot add or subtract any words into the policy so as to disturb its harmonious construction. As such, the petitioner’s case is required to be examined only in accordance with the Policy dated 14.06.2013 of which Clauses 15(4) and 16 provide as under:– 15.4 ifjokj esa vuqdEik fu;qfDr ds fy, dksbZ ik= O;Ld lnL; u gksus ij lacaf/kr dk;kZy; izeq[k }kjk rnk’k; dh lwpuk foHkkxk/;{k dk;kZy; dks vfoyac nh tk,xh ,oa rn~laca/kh i= dh izfrfyfi ifjokj ds eqf[k;k dks nh tk;sxhA 16. vuqdEik fu;qfDr ds fy, le; lhek & lkekU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vuqdEik fu;qfDr ds fy, vf/kdre vof/k 3 o”kZ gksxh rFkk fo’ks”k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g vof/k 5 o”kZ gksxh ysfdu] blds fy, vkSfpR; ,oa dkj.k n’kkZrs gq, iz’kkldh; foHkkx ds ek/;e ls lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx dh vuqefr izkIr djuk vko’;d gksxhA 7. From a plain reading of Clauses 15(4) and 16, it is clear that these provisions apply to cases where there is no major member in the family eligible for compassionate appointment. In such situations, the limitation for submitting an application is three years, extendable up to a maximum period of five years where approval of the State Government will be necessary. However, the present case does not fall within the ambit of Clause 16. The petitioner had submitted his application well within the prescribed time-limit, and therefore, treating his case as one falling under Clause 16 of the Circular is wholly misconceived and reflects non-application of mind. Such a view cannot be sustained and deserves to be rejected. 8.In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 19.09.2025, insofar as it pertains to the petitioner, is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated on the post of Peon. It is clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages however, his seniority shall be reckoned from the initial date of his appointment without any break in service. 9 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed”. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the bunch of these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is not disputed by counsel for the respondents. 6. Accordingly, all the impugned orders so far as it relates to the petitioners are quashed. The petitioners are directed to be reinstated on the post of Peon. It is clarified that the petitioners are not entitled to get back wages, however, their seniority shall be reckoned from the initial date of their appointment without any break in service. 7. Accordingly, all the bunch of these writ petitions are allowed in terms of order dated 18-11-2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 12389 of 2025 in case of Jaichand Sarthi (supra). 8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.12.19 12:16:30 +0530