1 2026:CGHC:10720-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 159 of 2026 1 - Amit Kumar Rathore S/o Late Shri Purushottam Lal Rathore Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Shri Moti Netralaya, Behind Keshav Furniture, I.B. Rest House Road, Nahar Par, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Chhattisgarh Rajya Kaushal Vikas Pradhikaran Bhawan, Second Floor, Old P.H.Q. Campus, Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Anniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Shri Praveen Das, Addl.Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Sakshi Chhabra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 02.03.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.03.03 10:45:53 +0530 2 condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 25.07.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 176/2025 (Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs. Amit Kumar Rathore and Another), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the review petition and recalled the order dated 06.05.2025 passed in WPS No. 3162/2025 preferred by the present appellant / petitioner thereby restoring the writ petition to its original number. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the Appellant/Petitioner was initially an employee of the dissolved Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) and, after reorganization of the State, his services were absorbed in the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC) while he was posted on deputation as Conductor in the office of Superintendent of Police, Janjgir. He unfortunately died in harness on 24/12/2020, thereafter the Appellant/Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 20.01.2021 along with requisite documents, however, despite repeated representations and correspondence made by the Collector with the General Administration Department seeking clarification in view of policy changes, no final decision was communicated to him. Subsequently, policy developments including order dated 13/12/2022 permitting compassionate appointment to dependents of employees of dissolved State Transport Corporation on suitable Class-III/Class-IV posts and circular dated 06/10/2023 withdrawing the earlier restriction 3 to Shiksha Karmi Grade-III posts were issued, however, the claim of the Appellant/Petitioner remained unattended. Aggrieved, he preferred W.P.(S) No. 3162/2025, wherein by order dated 06/05/2025 the learned Single Bench directed consideration of his claim within 90 days, but in Review Petition No. 176/2025 the said order was recalled on 25/07/2025 at the instance of CIDC, allegedly on the ground that his claim had already been rejected though no such rejection order was ever communicated to him or produced earlier. It is further the case of the Appellant/Petitioner that similarly situated dependents have been granted consideration pursuant to Court orders, and being aggrieved by the recall of the favourable order and continued non-consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment, he has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has gravely erred both in law and on facts in allowing the Review Petition and recalling the order dated 06.05.2025, without appreciating that the appellant had, since 2021, submitted repeated representations along with all requisite documents seeking compassionate appointment, yet no reasoned decision was ever communicated to him by the authorities. It is contended that the original order in W.P.(S) No. 3162/2025 merely directed consideration of his claim and did not issue any specific adverse direction against respondent No. 02, and therefore the review at its instance was wholly misconceived. The learned Single Judge, it is urged, failed to consider that similarly situated dependents have been granted consideration pursuant to court directions and also overlooked the subsequent policy 4 developments, particularly the order dated 13/12/2022 and circular dated 06/10/2023, whereby compassionate appointment to dependents of employees of the dissolved MPSRTC absorbed in CIDC was permitted on equivalent Class-III/Class-IV posts and the earlier restriction to Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under circular dated 19/07/2011 stood withdrawn. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Kuldeep Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WPS No. 995/2020 to contend that once the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III ceased to exist and the 2011 circular was recalled, the authorities were bound to consider the claim under prevailing Instructions, 2013. It is further argued that the humanitarian object of compassionate appointment— providing immediate financial relief to the bereaved family of a deceased employee dying in harness has been completely ignored. The alleged rejection order was never communicated nor produced during the pendency of the writ petition and could not have been introduced at the stage of review, as review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised as an appeal in disguise, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in (2019) 20 SCC 753 and Lily Thomas v. Union of India reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224. Hence, the impugned order passed in review is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent / CIDC opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the review petition filed by the writ 5 petitioner / respondent No.2 herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent / State submits that he is a formal party in the appeal, however, supports the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge allowed the review petition preferred by the writ petitioner / respondent No.2 herein observing as follows: “6. From bare perusal, it is manifest that though while hearing the writ petitions under review the CIDC was properly represented on advance copy, however, due to lack of proper instructions he could not place anything. However, the writ petitions were disposed off directing the Chief Secretary to the State Government to look into the grievance and claim of the writ petitioner afresh. 7. Be that as it may, now the review petitioner bringing several facts and orders/ circular issued by the authorities with regard to the policy framed regarding grant of compassionate appointment preferred the present review petition, which was not brought before this court at the time of hearing of writ petitions, hence, all the review petitions are allowed. 8. Consequently, the orders passed in WPS No. 2555 of 2025, 3302 of 2025, 2890 of 2025 and 3162 of 2025 dated 16.04.2025, 08.05.2025, 29.04.2025 and 06.05.2025, respectively are hereby recalled and the said writ petitions are restored to their original numbers.” 10. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC) as to why proper instructions were not furnished at the time of hearing of the review petition despite the Corporation being duly represented, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on its behalf submitted that since appearance had been entered on advance copy, complete instructions 6 were not readily available and, therefore, the Court could not be effectively assisted. 11. We are unable to accept the said explanation. Merely because appearance was entered on advance copy cannot absolve the respondent-Corporation of its obligation to properly assist the Court. It was incumbent upon the counsel either to ensure that requisite instructions were obtained or to seek appropriate time from the Court for that purpose. However, no such request was made when the review petition was taken up for hearing. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that, as observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order passed in the review petition, the appellant had suppressed material facts relevant to the case. 13. In response, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no facts were suppressed. A perusal of the impugned order would reveals that the alleged rejection of earlier representation was never communicated to him which cannot be construed as suppression of facts by the appellant. 14. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of review jurisdiction. The recall of the earlier order and restoration of the writ petition to its original number cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction so as to warrant interference in this intra-court appeal. 15. However, we find substance in the grievance of the appellant that there was lack of proper assistance on behalf of respondent No.2 – CIDC at 7 the stage of hearing of the writ petition. Once the authority was represented through its counsel before the writ Court, it was incumbent upon it to fully and effectively assist the Writ Court. The failure to do so has resulted in unnecessary prolongation of proceedings and avoidable hardship to the appellant by filing this writ appeal. 16. It is further observed that the conduct of respondent No.2 – CIDC, in failing to place proper instructions and relevant materials before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the writ petition, has not only reflected a lack of due diligence but has also caused inconvenience to the learned Single Judge who has passed the order dated 06.05.2025 in the writ petition and thereafter, had to recall its own order in the review petition vide order dated 25.07.2025. A litigant, particularly a statutory Corporation like CIDC, is expected to act with responsibility and fairness while assisting the Court. The inability of its counsel to provide adequate instructions, without even seeking adjournment or time to obtain the same, led to an incomplete and unsatisfactory assistance to the Court, thereby compelling the learned Single Judge to proceed in circumstances where the necessary clarity from the respondent-Corporation was lacking. Such casual approach on the part of respondent No.2 undermines the sanctity of judicial proceedings and cannot be countenanced. 17. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Review Petition No.176/2025, we deem it appropriate to saddle respondent No.2 with costs for the manner in which the matter has been conducted before the writ Court. 8 18. Though we were inclined to impose costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- in view of the conduct of respondent No.2 – CIDC, however, upon repeated and earnest requests made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on its behalf, we deem it appropriate that the respondent No.2 – CIDC shall pay cost of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the competent authority and shall be paid to the petitioner, at the earliest. 19. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder