1 2026:CGHC:2553 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3043 of 2023 Girdhar Kumar Verma S/o Late Rangu Ram Verma Aged About 34 Years Working As Peon, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Sahil Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s) :- “10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.16 18:26:36 +0530 2 10.2 To kindly direct the respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for granting appointment on Class III post from the date 20/5/2013 with all consequential benefits by modifying the appointment order of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working as a Field Worker, Class-IV employee under the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) and his father died in harness on 26.12.2012. As per the compassionate appointment policy, the petitioner submitted an application before Respondent No.3 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner possesses the qualification of Higher Secondary (12th) and Diploma in Computer Application. The compassionate appointment policy, under Clause-12, specifically provides that if a dependent family member of a deceased Class-IV employee fulfills the qualification for a higher post, he shall be entitled to appointment on a Class-III post. At the relevant time, i.e., during the year 2012-13, posts of Assistant Grade-III and Assistant Revenue Inspector were vacant under respondent No.3. 3. Without considering Clause-12 of the policy, the qualifications of the petitioner, and the availability of vacant Class-III posts, respondent No.3 arbitrarily granted appointment to the petitioner on the post of Peon (Class-IV) vide order dated 20.05.2013 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 10.06.2013 before Respondent No.3 seeking reconsideration of his appointment on a Class-III post as per policy. However, the said representation was 3 neither decided nor replied to and was kept pending without assigning any justified reason. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No. 1360/2022, wherein this Court, vide order dated 07.03.2022, directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation within a period of 90 days. In purported compliance of the said order, respondent No.2 rejected the representation in a mechanical manner, without considering the petitioner’s case in a proper and prospective manner and in blatant disregard of the compassionate appointment policy. As per the policy and instructions governing compassionate appointment, the respondent employer was duty-bound to inform the dependent family member regarding availability of suitable posts in accordance with the qualification of the applicant. However, no such information was ever provided to the petitioner, and in an arbitrary manner, he was appointed to a Class-IV post despite availability of Class-III posts. 5. Respondent No.3 has extended the benefit of Class-III appointments to other similarly situated candidates, while denying the same to the petitioner, thereby violating the doctrine of equality and the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-consideration of the petitioner for appointment on a Class-III post, despite availability of vacant posts and the petitioner possessing requisite qualifications, and the consequent rejection of his representation, is in clear violation of 4 Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim vide letter dated 13.02.2023 issued by respondent No.3 is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair and contrary to the principles of fairness and fair play in administrative action. The policy governing compassionate appointment, under Clause-12, mandates that where a dependent family member of a deceased Class-IV employee fulfills the qualification for a higher post, he shall be entitled to appointment on a Class-III post on compassionate grounds. Since the petitioner fulfills the requisite qualifications for a Class-III post, respondent No.3 ought to have granted him appointment on a Class-III post. 7. It is submitted that during the relevant period, i.e., 2012-13, there existed clear vacancies on the posts of Assistant Grade-III and Assistant Revenue Inspector under Respondent No.3. However, by order dated 20.05.2013, the petitioner was not considered for appointment to a Class-III post and was erroneously appointed on the post of Peon (Class-IV). Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III or any other equivalent Class-III post from the same date, i.e., 20.05.2013, with all consequential benefits and as per the compassionate appointment policy as well as Circular dated 07.03.2011, respondent No.3 was duty- bound to provide complete information regarding available posts and the procedure for compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee. No such information was ever provided to the petitioner, and in a wholly arbitrary manner, he was appointed on a Class-IV post, despite being eligible for a Class-III post. 5 8. It is further submitted that it was the statutory and policy obligation of Respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner’s case in a proper and prospective manner, taking into account the petitioner’s qualifications and available vacancies. The said duty, expressly cast upon respondent No.3 by the policy, has not been discharged. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the lapses and errors committed by the respondent authorities. Respondent No.3 cannot decline the petitioner’s claim on the basis of its own mistake or administrative lapse, nor can it shift its burden upon the petitioner. Once an error has been committed by the respondent authority, it is incumbent upon it to rectify the same, and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for such error. 9. It is argued that similarly situated persons, i.e., dependents of deceased Class-IV employees, have been granted the benefit of Clause-12 of the compassionate appointment policy and have been appointed on Class-III posts. Denial of the same benefit to the petitioner, without any justifiable reason, amounts to hostile discrimination and is a gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The policy is uniformly applicable to all beneficiaries, and selective application thereof is impermissible in law. The petitioner, being similarly situated, is entitled to equal treatment, and the denial of such treatment violates the constitutional guarantee under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is urged that being a welfare State, the actions of the respondent authorities are required to be transparent, reasonable, and in conformity with the principles of equality and fair play in administrative 6 action. Respondent No.3, being a model employer, is expected to act fairly and reasonably and cannot discriminate between similarly situated employees. Consequently, the respondents are duty-bound to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and grant him appointment on an available Class-III post, strictly in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that a bare perusal of the pleadings and averments made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, along with the documents annexed thereto, would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 – Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, as the impugned letter/order has admittedly been issued by respondent No.3. Thus, the principal contesting respondent in the present petition is respondent No.3. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was duly considered for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable policy and was granted appointment on the post of Peon (Class-IV) vide order dated 20.05.2013. It is submitted that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a concession extended to mitigate the immediate financial hardship of the family of the deceased employee. The petitioner having already accepted and joined the post of Peon, cannot, after a lapse of substantial time, claim appointment on a higher post as a matter of entitlement. 7 13. Learned counsel further submits that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on a Class-III post was duly examined and thereafter rejected vide letter dated 13.02.2023, strictly in accordance with the governing policy and administrative instructions. No illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the said decision. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any vested or enforceable right for appointment on a Class-III post, and mere availability of vacancies does not create an automatic right in favour of the petitioner. The policy nowhere mandates retroactive upgradation of compassionate appointment once granted and accepted. 14. Lastly, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that, as per the compassionate appointment policy, only 10% of the total vacancies in Class-III posts can be filled on compassionate grounds. Since no Class-III post was available for such appointment at the relevant time, the petitioner was rightly granted appointment on a Class-IV post, which he has accepted. At this stage, the petitioner cannot challenge or dispute the said appointment. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 16. From a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner, upon joining the Class-IV post on 20.05.2013, promptly raised an objection on 10.06.2013, requesting consideration for appointment on a Class-III post in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy. This shows that the petitioner acted within the prescribed time and in conformity with the procedural requirements. However, despite 8 the timely submission of the objection, the said representation was neither considered nor disposed of by the respondent authorities. The records further reveal that even at present, there are vacant posts in the relevant Class-III category under the concerned authorities. Nevertheless, the petitioner’s claim has remained unexamined, indicating an omission on the part of the authorities to exercise their duty under the policy. 17. In view of the foregoing, particularly the fact that the petitioner has been denied appointment to a Class-III post solely on the ground of non-availability of vacancy, this Court, without entering into the merits of the substantive claim, deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition while issuing certain directions to ensure fair consideration of the petitioner’s case. 18. The petitioner is hereby directed to file a fresh representation before the competent authorities, clearly stating the entire factual background, including his qualifications, the date of his objection, and the availability of vacant Class-III posts. In turn, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for appointment to a Class-III post on compassionate grounds strictly in accordance with the applicable policy, rules, and administrative instructions. 19. The consideration of the petitioner’s representation shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of its filing. It is further clarified that the petitioner shall submit the fresh representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9 20. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh