1 CGHC010263562022 2026:CGHC:29916 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5426 of 2022 1 - Smt. Meerabai Pottam Wd/o Late Gopal Singh Pottam Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jhiriatola, And (Nimdha) , Post Bagdad, Tahsil Marvahi Distt. Gaourella - Pendra - Marvahi, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector And District Magistrate District - Gaurella - Pendra - Marvahi Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub - Divisional Officer (R), Marvahi District - Gaurella - Pendra - Marvahi Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar Marvahi District - Gaurella - Pendra - Marvahi Chhattisgarh 5 - Ravishanker Pottam S/o Late Gopal Singh Pottam R/o Village Nimdha, Tahsil Marvahi, District - Gaurella - Pendra - Marvahi Chhattisgarh 6 - Nandani Pottam D/o Late Gopal Singh Pottam R/o Village Nimdha, Tahsil Marvahi, District - Gaurella - Pendra - Marvahi Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Bharat Lal Dembra. Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15.07.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the respondents pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ quashing the impugned order dated 04.08.2022 being illegal, arbitrary and against the law and allow the petitioner to work as per her appointment dated 16.12.2021 at Tahsil Office Marvahi Distt. Gaurella-Pendra-Marvahi (C.G.) by restoring the same as legal. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and operation of impugned order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 till final disposal of petition. 10.4 That, any other relief, which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of this application is filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the husband of the petitioner, namely Gopal Singh Pottam, who was working as a Peon under respondent No.4, died in harness on 23.7.2020. He would further contend that the petitioner, being the second wife of the deceased, applied for compassionate appointment. Her application was allowed and she was appointed to the post of 3 Peon vide order dated 16.12.2021. He would submit that the said order of appointment dated 16.12.2021 was cancelled by the Collector, Gaurella-Pendra-Marvahi vide order dated 4.8.2022 on the ground that the petitioner failed to disclose the fact that she is second wife of the deceased government servant. He would submit that the reasons assigned by the Collector/ respondent No.2 appears to be erroneous. He would submit that the first wife of Gopal Singh Pottam died on 8.10.2006 and thereafter, the marriage between Gopal Singh Pottam and the petitioner was solemnized in the year 2007. He would submit that the deceased government servant and the petitioner lived together as husband and wife for a period of 13 years and thereafter, Gopal Singh Pottam died in harness on 23.7.2020. He would contend that there was neither any misrepresentation nor any fraud on the part of the petitioner and that there was no requirement for her to disclose the fact that she is the second wife of the deceased government servant. Therefore, the order dated 4.8.2022 passed by respondent No.2 may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would contend that an enquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar wherein it was found that the name of the petitioner was not entered in the service record whereas, the name of her son, Gajendra Singh was manipulated into the service record. It is further contended that the petitioner suppressed this fact while applying for grant of 4 compassionate appointment, therefore, respondent No.2 rightly terminated her services. She would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. Under the Policy for Grant of Compassionate Appointment, 2013, there is no provision requiring an applicant seeking compassionate appointment to disclose whether she is the first wife or the second wife of the deceased government servant. The order of preference prescribed under the policy is reproduced herein below: “5. अनुकम्पा निनुयुक्ति हे  पात्र उम्मीदवार- दिदवाग शासकयु स वाक क आश्रि पारिरवार क निनुम्नुलि"खि$ वायुस्क सदस्यु& मी' स निकस एक सदस्यु क) नुचे दर्शिशा, क्रमीनुसर अर्था/0 (क) क अस्वाकर करनु पार यु पात्र नु हे)नु पार ($) क) एवा उसक पाश्चा0 इस अनुक्रमी मी' आग (ग), (घ) एवा (ङ) क अनुकम्पा निनुयुक्ति हे  क्रमीशा5 निवाचेर निकयु जायु ग :- (क) दिदवाग शासकयु स वाक क निवाधवा/निवाधर, ($) पात्र/ दत्तक पात्र, (ग) [* *] पात्र/ 1[ * *] दत्तक पात्र, (घ) आश्रि निवाधवा पात्र/ आश्रि दत्तक निवाधवा पात्र एवा, (ङ) आश्रि "कशाद पात्र आश्रि "कशाद दत्तक पात्र, (चे) पात्र वाध ।]” 6. The facts narrated in the writ petition and the documents placed on record would reveal that the first wife of the deceased government servant, namely Meera Bai, died on 8.10.2006. Thereafter, Gopal Singh Pottam solemnized a second marriage 5 with the petitioner in the year 2007. It is true that the deceased government servant did not take any steps to get entered the name of the petitioner in his service record. It is stated in the report submitted by the Tehsildar that the name of the petitioner’s son was manipulated in the service records; however, there is no finding that such manipulation was done by the petitioner herself or at her instance. Therefore, such a finding would not affect the petitioner’s entitilement for grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment and her application was allowed. Consequently, she was appointed to the post of Peon vide order dated 16.12.2021. The Collector vide order dated 4.8.2022, cancelled the order of appointment of the petitioner solely on the ground that she failed to disclose the fact that she is the second wife of late Gopal Singh Pottam. A perusal of the applicable policy would make it clear that there was no requirement for the petitioner to disclose this fact. Admittedly, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, and during the lifetime of her husband, no objection was raised by any authority or person regarding their marriage. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Collector while cancelling the appointment of the petitioner appear to be erroneous. 7. Having considered the facts discussed above, the order passed by the Collector dated 4.8.2022 is hereby quashed. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing though she was appointed against a sanctioned vacant 6 post on compassionate ground, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. She shall be entitled for seniority etc. attached to the post from the date of her initial appointment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to plead or establish that the petitioner was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner with regard to back-wages or arrears of salary is hereby rejected. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi