1 2026:CGHC:6829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2097 of 2024 1 - Ramkumari Rai W/o Late Mahendra Kumar Rai Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Chauha Post Tikari Ps And Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat Mahanadi Bhavan New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Panchayat And Social Welfare Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector Raipur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Japad Panchayat Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Deeksha Gauraha, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 06/02 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application of the petitioner for 2 compassionate appointment for post of Panchayat Secretary or any suitable post. 10.2 That, the respondents be directed to pay the compensatory cost to the petitioner from the date applied till date. 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which the Hon’ble Court feels fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner while working as Panchayat Secretary and posted at Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District – Bilaspur died-in-harness on 19.01.2020. Petitioner who is the widow of deceased employee, submitted her representation the office of Janpad Panchayat on 13.10.2022. Thereafter, claim of petitioner was forwarded to the office of Respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer and in turn, the concerned authority has written a letter to the Respondent No. 5/Chief Executive Officer to verify as to whether, the petitioner submitted an application within specified time or not? However, thereafter, no further order has been passed on the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. In fact, petitioner was orally informed that she cannot be granted compassionate appointment. The act of the respondents in not passing any order on the claim of petitioner, on the application submitted by her is highly arbitrary and therefore, direction be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and take decision on the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that the contesting party is Respondents No. 4 & 5 and according to their instructions, petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment after lapse of long time. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 submits that the application of the petitioner is filed at a belated stage and therefore, no order have been passed. He contended that according to the pleadings made in reply, it is 3 apparent that the petitioner has obtained the qualification of Class – 12 in the year 2023 and for grant of compassionate appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary, qualification of 12th pass is necessary. Death of the deceased employee was on 19.01.2020 from which, it is apparent that the petitioner has submitted her application for grant of compassionate appointment after 03 years. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment based on the circular issued by the State Government dated 14.06.2013 referring to all the departments of the State Government including all the Chief Executive Officers of all the Zila Panchayats. Under clause 15 of the said circular, it is provided for the procedure for compassionate appointment. Clause 15 (1) casts duty upon the officials of the Panchayats or the concerned departments to inform the legal representatives of the deceased employee about the procedure for compassionate appointment, to further provide application in the prescribed format to be filled up and to be submitted before the competent authority and it also provides that such information is to be kept recorded/secured in the office. 7. Sub-clause 2 of Clause 15 prescribes the period for submission of application form by the legal representatives of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment and the period prescribed is within 03 months. Though the Respondent No. 4 has taken a defence that the application is submitted at a belated stage, however, there is no averment or any document placed on record to show that when the petitioner was informed about her entitlement to get compassionate appointment under the circular of 2013 or any material suggesting that such information is forwarded along with the application in the prescribed format. 4 8. In absence of the aforementioned necessary particulars that the petitioner was made aware about the procedure for grant of compassionate appointment, the Respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer cannot invoke sub-clause 2 of Clause 15 to say that the application is submitted at a belated stage. The period of limitation from the contents of the circular will start running from the date of the information to be supplied to the legal representatives of the deceased employee, which is missing in this case and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, defence taken by the counsel for the Respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer that the application of the petitioner is submitted at a belated stage is not sustainable and accordingly, it is repelled. 9. In the facts of the case, where it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was an employee of the Respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer, petitioner had already submitted an application for compassionate appointment and therefore, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner treating the application to be submitted within specified time in accordance with the clauses of the circular dated 14.06.2013 expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of the order. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Date: 2026.02.17 15:35:03 +0530