1 2026:CGHC:23777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3512 of 2022 1 - Dewashish Mandavi S/o Late Kaliram Mandavi Aged About 20 Years R/o Village And Post Rengadabri, Block- Doundilohara, District- Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zilal Panchayat Balod, District- Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate alongwith Shri G.P. Mathur, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Keshav Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15.06.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P-1 and direct the NIRMALA RAO 2 respondent authority to consider and grant compassionate appointment as per judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Sitesh Kumar Sahu within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner namely Kaliram Mandavi, was working on the post of Sub-Engineer under the respondents who died in harness on 6.11.2015. He would contend that an application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by the mother of the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner on 1.2.2016. He would submit that subsequently, after attaining majority, the petitioner himself submitted another application on 19.10.2020 and same has been rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 4.11.2020 on the ground that, on the date of death of father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner was working as a Shiksha Karmi and her services were absorbed with the School Education Department in the year 2018. He would contend that at the time of death of father of the petitioner, his mother was working as a Shiksha Karmi in the Panchayat Department and was not a civil servant and therefore, the reason assigned by respondent No.2 while rejecting his representation appears to be erroneous and contrary to the law laid down in the matter of Harnarayan Yadav 3 Versus Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission1 which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that mother of the petitioner was working as a Shiksha Karmi in the Panchayat Department and subsequently, her services were absorbed with the School Education Department, pursuant to which she acquired the status of a ‘civil servant’, therefore, respondent No.2 rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 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) The question for consideration as to whether a Shiksha Karmi can be considered as Government servant came-up for consideration before this Court in the matter of Harnarayan Yadav (supra) (Single Bench), in which co-ordinate Court has held that Shiksha Kamri (petitioner therein) is not a Government servant and observed as under:- "15. Applying the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid judgments, if the facts of the present case are examined, it is quite apparent that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (now re-designated as Assistant 1. ILR 2017 Chhattisgarh 1864 4 Teacher Panchayat) under the Rules of 2007. The said Rules were promulgated under Section 70(1) read with Section 95 of the Act of 1993. That rules were not framed in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is also apparent that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, his appointing as well as disciplinary authority is the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara and as such, full administrative and disciplinary control vest in Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara. Merely because he has been placed under the disposal of school owned by the State Government, he cannot claim that he is a government servant. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is not entitled for protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Viewed from any angle, it cannot be held that petitioner was appointed under the Rules promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as such, the petitioner having been appointed by Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara pursuant to the Rules framed under the Rules promulgated under Section 70(1) of the Act of 1993 and admittedly not entitled for protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be held that the petitioner is government relaxation." servant and is entitled for age relaxation. " 6) The aforesaid order was taken to the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court has affirmed the order of single Judge holding that Shiksha Karmi is not the holder of a civil post and therefore, he is not a Government servant. It was observed as under:- “21. Keeping the totality of the various constitutional provisions and the corresponding enactments including the Act of 1993 and the 2007 Rules relating to appointment of the Panchayat Teachers, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the same conclusion as the learned single Judge that the Appellant cannot be treated as a Government Servant as he is not holder of a civil post under the State but an appointee of a Panchayat which is an 5 independent entity and has its own enactments and rules governing such appointees. The concession therefore which had been provided for in advertisement of age relaxation of additional three years to a Government servant cannot be extended to the Appellant as he is not holder of a civil post under the State and cannot be treated to be a Government servant to derive the benefit of age relaxation." 7) Judgment rendered by Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Harnarayan Yadav (supra) was affirmed by the Division Bench and SLP (C) No.12313/2019 against the order of Division Bench was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 1.7.2019, as such, it is established that Shiksha Karmi is not holder of a civil post under the State and therefore, he is not a Government servant. 8) In the present case, the father of the petitioner was working as a Sub-Engineer under respondent No.1, whereas the mother of the petitioner was a Shiksha Karmi. The mother of the petitioner was an employee of the Panchayat Department and her services were absorbed with the School Education Department in the year 2018. At the time of death of late Kaliram Mandavi, the mother of the petitioner was not a civil servant as held in the above-referred judgment, therefore, the reasons assigned by respondent No.2 in the order dated 4.11.2019 appear to be illegal and are hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in light of the observations made herein above, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be 6 completed by the authority concerned within the said period. 9) With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/-Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi