1 / 4 2026:CGHC:1846 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 297 of 2026 • Vinod Kumar Dagor S/o Shri Bal Kumar Aged About 51 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner 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. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent-State For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Mr. Aniruddh Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 13/01/2026 1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner’s compassionate appointment granted vide order dated 10.01.2025 has been cancelled on the ground that the approval has been not been granted by the State Government. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 4 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 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:– 3 / 4 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 व्ቧZ gksxh rFkk fo’ksष ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g vof/k 5 व्ቧZZ 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. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. 4. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputed by counsel for the respective respondents. 5. In the aforementioned facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and further considering the order passed 4 / 4 by this Court in WPS No. 12389/2025, impugned order Annexure P-1 is hereby set aside. It is directed that petitioner to be reinstated on the post of Peon. It is clarified that the petitioner is not entitled to get back wages, however, his seniority shall be reckoned from the initial date of his appointment without any break in service. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is 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). 7. All the pending interlocutory application, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE