1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3766 of 2023 Reserved On 27/11/2025 Delivered On 11/12/2025 1 - Smt. Priyanka Sharma W/o. Anoop Sharma, Aged About 44 Years R/o. House No. 115, Adarsh Nagar Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Ditrict Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Director Of Public Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may issue appropriate writ directing the Respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in place of deceased employee (brother of petitioner). 10.2 Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Fact of the case for necessary disposal of this case, in brief, are that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the married sister of the deceased government employee Late Shri Sandeep Dubey, seeking compassionate appointment under the prevailing policy of the State Government. The deceased was serving as Assistant Grade-III at the Government High School and died in harness on 18.04.2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic due to coronavirus infection. After the demise of the deceased employee, his real brother, Shri Ashish Pandey, initially submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. However, the said application of the elder brother was rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 26.06.2021 on the ground that he had crossed the prescribed upper age limit. Thereafter, the present petitioner submitted her application seeking compassionate appointment. The said application, however, was rejected by the District Education Officer on the ground that more than one year had elapsed since the death of the deceased, and therefore, the claim was time-barred. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a detailed representation dated 21.11.2022, pursuant to 3 which the matter was forwarded by the District Education Officer to the Directorate of Public Education, Indravati Bhawan, seeking necessary instructions. Despite such communication, no decision has been taken and the petitioner continues to remain without any appointment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner, being the real sister of the deceased employee, Sandeep Dubey, is fully eligible for compassionate appointment under the policies and instructions issued in 2013 and 2019, which explicitly recognize even married sisters as eligible dependents for such appointment. It is further contended that the alleged delay of one year cannot be held against the petitioner, as an earlier application had already been filed by the deceased’s brother, which came to be rejected solely on the ground of his over-age, and therefore the petitioner’s claim cannot be treated as time-barred. Counsel also relies on the State Government’s circular and subsequent clarification affirming that, in the case of an unmarried or widowed government employee with no children, dependent parents, brothers, and sisters are eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. In view of the above policies, clarifications, and the petitioner’s status as an eligible dependent, it is urged that the authorities be directed to pass an appropriate order granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 4 4. Learned counsel further submits that the State Government has issued clarifications permitting consideration of dependent mother, father, brother and sister for compassionate appointment in cases where the deceased government servant was unmarried or a widower without surviving children. Thus, the petitioner squarely falls within the zone of consideration. He further submits that the respondents, though yet to file a return, fairly submits that as per the memo dated 30.08.2016, dependent siblings may be considered in cases where the deceased was unmarried. It is also submitted, on the basis of the communication dated 28.04.2025 issued by the District Education Officer, that the petitioner’s case may be considered on its own merits in terms of Clause 6 of the policy governing compassionate appointment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost care. 6. The material on record clearly demonstrates that the deceased employee passed away on 18.04.2021, and immediately thereafter, the family initiated the process seeking compassionate appointment. The rejection of the elder brother's application was based solely on age criteria and not on eligibility or delay. The subsequent rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground that the application was beyond one year is inconsistent with the governing policy, which prescribes a period of three years and five years for submission of such applications. 5 7. The rejection order, therefore, suffers from legal infirmity, being contrary to the applicable rules and policies. The record also confirms that the competent authority has already acknowledged the applicability of the circular, whereby dependent parents and siblings, including married sisters, may be considered for compassionate appointment. 8. In view of the above analysis, without entering into the merits of the petitioner’s eligibility, Respondent No. 3–District Education Officer, Mungeli, is directed to consider the petitioner’s case afresh for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the applicable policies and circulars governing compassionate appointment, including the circulars of 2013, and 2019, wherein married dependent sisters are recognized as eligible dependents. 9. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent shall pass a reasoned and speaking order and duly communicate the same to the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena