p. 1 2025:CGHC:56095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12389 of 2025 1 - Jaichand Sarthi S/o Late Shyamchand Sarthi Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 1/11/23, Ward No. 01, Hamalpara, Naya Mohalla, Kharsia, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Divisional Office, R.K. Nagar, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector, Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Commissioner Nagar Palik Nigam, Saket Bhawan, Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) p. 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General For R5 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 18.11.2025 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, whereby the petitioner’s compassionate appointment granted vide order dated 08.01.2025 has been cancelled on the ground that the proposal seeking approval from the State Government has been rejected 2. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the petitioner’s father, who was serving under the Municipal Corporation, Korba, died in harness on 01.08.2017. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment within two months of the demise of his father. Pursuant thereto, he was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Peon vide order dated 08.01.2025, and he accordingly joined his duties and discharged them diligently. Subsequently all of a sudden, respondent No. 5, vide order dated 19.09.2025, cancelled the petitioner’s appointment on the ground that the Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, has not granted approval to the proposal. Aggrieved by the arbitrary cancellation of his compassionate p. 3 appointment, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 19.09.2025. 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, has filed his affidavit wherein it is not disputed that the petitioner had submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 07.10.2017. The Commissioner had addressed letters to the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Bilaspur on 15.12.2019, 09.07.2021, 14.07.2021, 07.08.2023, 05.02.2024, and 09.09.2024, informing him about the pending cases of compassionate appointment, including the petitioner’s case, which remained pending due to non-availability of vacancies. On 12.02.2025, the Commissioner again furnished information regarding the pending cases for the last five years, wherein the petitioner’s name was also included. Subsequently, on 31.12.2024, certain new posts were created, and based on the availability of vacancies, the petitioner was issued an appointment order dated 08.01.2025 for the post of Peon. After issuing the appointment order, the Commissioner forwarded the petitioner’s case to the State Government for confirmation. However, as the State Government did not accord approval, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, cancelled the petitioner’s appointment vide the impugned order dated 19.09.2025. 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 :- p. 4 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 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 p. 5 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. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.11.21 11:18:09 +0530