1 2025:CGHC:60501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 943 of 2025 1. Namita Gupta W/o Shri Prashant Gupta, Aged About 38 Years, W/o Shri Prashant Gupta, R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Bangla Para, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Joint Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Nilima Gupta W/o Shri Ashok Gupta R/o Village- Bhojpalli, Post- Loing, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Devendra Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 12.12.2025 1. Notice has already been served upon respondent No. 6 on 20.03.2025, but she has chosen not to appear before this Court, therefore, the matter is heard in her absence. MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.12.19 18:47:46 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the inaction of the respondents No. 4 and 5 in not considering the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 3. The brief facts reflected from the record are that the petitioner is sister of late Shri Pradeept Ranjan Bhoy who was working as Lecturer Panchayat and was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Tangarghat, Block - Raigarh (C.G.) died on 08.09.2016 due to illness. The petitioner being married sister of the deceased has applied for grant of compassionate appointment to the respondent and the same has not been considered. It has also been contended that the petitioner has completed Graduation and B.Ed. as well as she has cleared the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) Examination conducted by the State Government as well as Central Government in the year 2022 and 2023 respectively, therefore, she is eligible to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher as she is fulfilling the requisite qualification. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels for respondents No. 4 and 5 would submit that since the petitioner is not dependent upon the earnings of the deceased brother as she is a married sister, therefore, she is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. He would further submit that TET examination has been conducted after 6 years, as such also she is not eligible for grant of compassionate appointment. He would further submit that the object of grant of compassionate appointment is to meet out the immediate financial crisis faced on account of unfortunate death of 3 Government servant which cannot be source of employment and since the petitioner has already survived, being married sister, therefore, she is not entitled to get compassionate appointed and he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the Circular dated 07.02.2014 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, according to which for grant of compassionate appointment if the family member of the deceased Teacher (Panchayat) cadre is not having the requisite qualification then they should be given 3 years for fulfilling the eligibility criteria and if the candidate is not having B.Ed., D.Ed. and Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), then 3 additional years may be given for their appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher or Teacher (Panchayat). Since the petitioner has fulfilled the requisite qualification on 05.10.2018, the same was not considered, thereafter, various representations for grant of compassionate appointment have been made as evident from (Annexure P/15) dated 31.07.2023 and in pursuance of that representation some query was raised, but it has not reached to its logical end. It has been further contended that inaction of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment suffers from arbitrariness, as such, he would pray for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment as per policy prevailing when the death of the petitioner’s brother was taken place. 6. On the other hand learned State counsel would submit that the 4 decision has to be taken by the Chief Executive Officer as per the recent circular dated 05.11.2024 issued by the State Government wherein the State Government has directed the Chief Executive Officers to consider the case of the employees who died while working as Teacher (Panchayat) cadre with the Panchayat Department, as such, the decision has to be taken by the respondent No. 4. The relevant paragraphs of the circular dated 05.11.2024 reads as under: “2@ eaf=ifj"kn vkns’k fnukad 16 vDVwcj] 2024 esa fn;s x;s esa fu.kZ; vuqlkj lanfHkZr i= }kjk iwoZ esa tkjh funsZ’k dks f’kfFky djrs gq;s] fuEufyf[kr fcUnqvksa ij dk;Zokgh dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gS%& (i) ,sls f’k{kd ¼iapk;r½ laoxZ ds deZpkjh ftudh e`R;q lsokdky esa gks xbZ Fkh ,oa ftuds vkfJr orZeku esa fu;ekuqlkj vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq ik= gS] mUgsa NRrhlx<+ f’k{kd ¼iapk;r½ laoxZ ds vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq izpfyr fu;eksa ds vk/kkj ij ik=rkuqlkj vuqdaik fu;qfDr fn;k tkosA (ii) f’k{kd ¼iapk;r½ laoxZ ds ,sls izdj.kksa ftuesa U;k;ky;hu vkns’kkuqlkj lsok esa iqu% cgky djus rFkk esfjV lwph ds vuqlkj fu;qfDr iznku djus laca/kh vkns’k ikfjr fd;s x;s gSa] mu izdj.kksa esa fu;ekuqlkj lsok esa iqu% cgkyh ,oa fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh dh tkosA lkFk gh ,ls cgkyh ,oa iqufuZ;qfDr i'pkr~ ftu izdj.kksa esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk N-x- iapk;r lsok ¼vuq’kklu rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1999 ds fu;e&7 dk ikyu ugh a gksus ds dkj.k ftyk iapk;r@tuin iapk;r ds lsok ls c[kkZLrh vkns’k vikLr fd, x, gSa rFkk foHkkx dks mDr fu;eksa ds vuqlkj mfpr dk;Zokgh djus dh Lora=rk Hkh iznku fd;k x;k gSA mu izdj.kksa esa fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k dk ikyu djrs gq, fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf’pr dh tkosA (iii) lafofy;u fnukad 01-07-2018 ds iwoZ ds ,sls izdj.k ftuesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk leLr ifj.kkeh ykHkksa] LoRoksa ;k vU; YkkHkksa lfgr Hkwry{kh izHkko ls inksUufr bR;kfn fn;s tkus ds vkns’k ikfjr fd;s x;s gS] mu izdj.kksa esa fu;ekuqlkj inksUufr lfefr xfBr dj inksUufr bR;kfn dh dk;Zokgh dh tkosA ftu izdj.kksa esa Hkwry{kh izHkko ls inksUufr ds laca/k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vH;kosnu fujkd`r djus dk funsZ’k fn;k x;k gS] mu izdj.kksa esa le;&lhek ds Hkhrj vH;kosnuksa dk fujkdj.k fd;k tkosA 3@ mDr dafMdk 02 dh fcUnq Ø- (i), (ii) ,oa (iii) ds fØ;kUo;u gsrq NRrhlx<+ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ,oa f’k{kd iapk;r laoxZ ds lsok 'krksZa gsrq orZeku esa izpfyr fu;e rFkk NÙkhlx<+ iapk;r lsok vuq’kklu rFkk vihy fu;e] 1999] le;&le; ij tkjh la’kksf/kr fu;eksa o le;&le; ij tkjh funsZ’kksa dk v{kj’k% ikyu fd;k tkos 5 rFkk d`r dk;Zokgh dh tkudkjh lapkyd] iapk;r dks vfuok;Z :i ls miyC/k djkbZ tk,A” 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the Policy prevailing in the year 2016 and amended from time to time, it is quite vivid that earlier there was no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to married sister. The said clause has been amended on 22.03.2016 and the circular dated 14.06.2013 has been amended as under: “6- vfookfgr 'kkldh; lsod dk fu/ku gksus ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr %& ,sls 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q gksus ij] tks vfookfgr gS ¼vFkok fo/kqj gS vkSj mlds dksbZ iq=@iq=h ugha gS½ rks ,sls fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ¼ekrk@firk dh vuq’kalk ij½ ***HkkbZ@cgu dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gksxhA ****ijUrq e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj esa ;fn iwoZ ls gh ifjokj dk dksbZ vU; lnL; 'kkldh; lsok esa gS] rks ifjokj ds vU; fdlh Hkh lnL; dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA 6¼v½ fnoaxr fookfgr 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj esa ;fn iwoZ ls gh ifjokj dk dksbZ vU; lnL; 'kkldh; lsok esa gS] rks ifjokj ds vU; fdlh Hkh lnL; dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA ***** Li"Vhdj.k& fnoaxr fookfgr ,oa vfookfgr 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj ds vkfJr lnL; esa fuEufyf[kr lnL; 'kkfey gksaxs%& ¼v½ fookfgr 'kkldh; lsod ds ekeys esa& vkfJr ekrk] firk] fo/kok iRuh@fo/kqj ifr] iq= ,oa iq=h ¼buesaa nRrd iq=@iq=h] fo/kok@rykd’kqnk iq=h 'kkfey gS½ rFkk iq=o/kqA ¼c½ vfookfgr 'kkldh; lsod ¼vFkok fo/kqj ftlds dksbZ iq=@iq=h ugha gS½ ds ekeys esa& vkfJr ekrk] firk] HkkbZ ,oa cguA” 9. Since the petitioner’s brother was unmarried therefore, the case of the petitioner has to be considered in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Policy which has been amended on 22.03.2016 before the date of death of petitioner’s brother on 08.09.2016, as such, this amended portion of the circular is squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner as the circular dated 22.03.2016 specifically provides that this amendment will be effective from the date of issuance of circular, therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for 6 the respondent that since the petitioner is married sister, therefore, she is not entitled to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment is misconceived and deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 10. 10. It is well settled position of law that the grant of compassionate appointment has to be strictly considered in terms of the policy/circular issued by the employer and this Court cannot insert the word which is not in existence in the policy/circular, therefore, I am of the view that submission of the counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 that since the petitioner is married sister, therefore, she is not entitled to get compassionate appointment is misconceived accordingly it is rejected. The respondent No. 4 and 5 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the Policy as amended on 22.03.2016 within period of 2 months and pass necessary order strictly in accordance with the Policy. 11. It is made clear that the respondent shall not deviate from the policy and will strictly examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the policy. 12. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish