1 2026:CGHC:22224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5143 of 2022 1 - Banshidhar Chouhan S/o Shri Ghasia Chouhan Aged About 35 Years Mother - Late Smt. Premshila Chouhan, R/o Ward No. 02, Chouhan Para, Village - Boridih, Tahsil - Baramkela And District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Circle - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Sub-Division - Sarangarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Amandeep Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 12.05.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order of termination dated 07-07-2022 passed by the Respondent No.4 and restore the earlier appointment order 02-12-2021 passed in the compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order by the respondent No.2. 10.2Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the petitioner, namely Smt. Premshila Chouhan was working as an unskilled labourer under the respondents, who died in harness on 17.10.2019. He would contend that the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment and the said application was rejected on 14.2.2020. He would contend that, assailing the said order, the petitioner filed WP(S) No.5366 of 2020 and the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.1.2021 whereby the respondents were directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner was offered an appointment to the post of unskilled labourer vide order dated 2.12.2021. He would argue that the petitioner joined said post on the same date but surprisingly, after six months of service, respondent No.4 vide order dated 7.7.2022 cancelled the order dated 2.12.2021 without assigning any reasons. He would contend that the order passed by respondent No.4 is non- speaking and cryptic one. He would submit that the petitioner was 3 appointed strictly in accordance with law as his application for grant of compassionate appointment was considered by the respondent authorities after due scrutiny. He would submit that the order Annexure-P/1 may be quashed. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that father of the petitioner was also working with the department against the post of unskilled labourer and this fact was not brought to the notice of the respondent authorities, therefore, the order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No.4 vide order dated 7.7.2022. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) A bare perusal of the order Annexure-P/1 dated 7.7.2022 would reveal that respondent No.4 has not assigned reasons while passing the order of cancellation of appointment order of the petitioner. An order passed without reasons is not sustainable in law, therefore, Annexure-P/1 dated 7.7.2022 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.4 shall pass speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4 6) With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi