1 2026:CGHC:14011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5581 of 2022  Kaleshwar Das S/o Late Shri Bigandas Aged About 39 Years R/o Village - Kutuma Baigakona, Tahsil - Bagicha Post - Rengale District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Ambikapur Division District - Surguja Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Circle Surguja Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh 4. The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5. Purandar Das S/o Late Shri Bigan Das Unskilled Labour, R/o Village - Kutuma Baigakona, Tahsil - Bagicha Post - Rengale District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Bulbul Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.03 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record pertaining to the case of petitioner from the respondents. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.25 18:54:49 +0530 2 issued by the office of respondent no. 2 (ANNEXURE P-1) as well as the information dated 14.07.2022 given by the office of respondent no. 4 (ANNEXURE P-2). 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to issue the fresh appointment order and consider the name of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, namely, Bigandas was working as unskilled labourer (regular employee) under the respondents and he died in harness on 26.02.2022. She would contend that an application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner, but surprisingly vide order dated 20.05.2022 order of appointment was issued in favour of respondent No. 5, younger brother of the petitioner. She would submit that the respondent authorities never sought for consent of the petitioner. She would submit that the respondent No. 5 was appointed as an unskilled labourer on a contingency- paid basis under the respondents vide order dated 20.05.2022. She would contend that the petitioner is eligible for appointment on compassionate basis, and therefore, the order of appointment issued in favour of respondent No. 5 may be quashed and direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that consent was given by mother and other family members of the deceased for grant of compassionate 3 appointment to the respondent No. 5. He would submit that the Superintending Engineer considered the claim of respondent No. 5 strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules, and thereafter, issued an order of appointment dated 20.05.2022. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Perusal of Annexure P/2 dated 14.07.2022 would reveal that consent letter was given by widow and other family members of the deceased in favour of respondent No.5, who is younger brother of the petitioner, consequently an order of appointment dated 20.05.2022 was issued. It is argued that respondent No. 5 is not supporting the petitioner financially, but on said ground the order of appointment cannot be canceled. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the respondent No. 2, and in turn, said authority is directed to decide it in accordance with the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant