1 CGHC010292402022 2026:CGHC:31026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5868 of 2022 1 - Smt. Revati Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Sahoran Lal Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Vill-Badheshar, Bdm Hospoital Road, Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Anita Sahu W/o Shri Shiv Kumar Sahu Aged About 34 Years D/o Late Sahoran Lal Sahu, R/o Bdm Hospital Road, Champa,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Tah And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Welfare Department Janjgir, Sub Division Janjgir, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Welfare Department Janjgir,, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Welfare Department (B And R), Sub Division Janjgir,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Sangeeta Sahu W/o Rameshwar Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Vill-Avrid, Tah Nawagarh,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Harprasad Aged About 36 Years Vill Taga, Tah. Akaltara,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioners : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL For respondents No.5 : Mr. B.M. Roy, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey -2- Order on Board 21.07.2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS and set aside the order dated 15.07.2022 issued by respondent No. 02 in light of consent given by the petitioner No. 01. 10.2 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS directing the respondent No. 01 to 04 to consider the application of the petitioner No. 02 in light of the prescribed service rule and the consent of the petitioner No. 01. 10.3 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Anil Sahu was working with the respondent No.2 as unskilled labourer w.e.f.03.03.2020. He would contend that he died in harness on 26.08.2021 leaving behind his mother and three sisters. He would further contend that petitioner No.2, who is the sister of the deceased employee, moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment along with the consent letter of her mother, but respondent No.3, vide order dated 15.07.2022, directed petitioner No.2 to submit the consent letters of respondent Nos.5 & 6. Mr. Sharma would submit that according to Clause 6 of the Policy for grant of compassionate appointment dated 14th of June, 2013, the consent of the mother of an unmarried Government servant is sufficient, and there is no need to submit consent letters of the siblings of an unmarried employee. He would pray to quash order dated 15.07.2022. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. He would 3 contend that after death of Anil Sahu, petitioner No.2 and respondents No.5 & 6, who are sisters, are entitled to claim compassionate appointment. He would submit that petitioner No.2 has submitted the consent letter of the mother alone and therefore, respondent No.3 directed to submit consent letters of respondents No.5 & 6 also. He would contend that the order has been passed strictly in accordance with the Policy of 2013 and, thus, this petition being misconceived deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Admittedly, Anil Sahu, who was working as an unskilled work charged-contingency-paid employee under respondent No.2, died on 26.08.2021. He was a bachelor at the time of his death. According to the Policy for grant of Compassionate Appointment, 2013, one of the dependants of the deceased employee would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment. 6. Clause 5 of the Policy of 2013 describes order of preference of the dependents and 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) 1[* *] पात्र/ 1[ * *] दत्तक पात्र, (घ) आश्रि निवाधवा पात्र/ आश्रि दत्तक निवाधवा पात्र एवा, (ङ) आश्रि "कशाद पात्र' आश्रि "कशाद दत्तक पात्र, [(चे) पात्र वाध ।] 7. Clause 6 states that after the death of a bachelor Government -4- servant, on recommendation of the mother/father, a sibling can be considered for grant of compassionate appointment. 8. In the present case, the mother of late Anil Sahu is alive and has given her consent in favour of petitioner No.2. However, respondent No.2, vide order dated 15.07.2022, directed petitioner No.2 to submit the consent letters of respondents No.5 & 6. The said direction is contrary to the provisions of Clause 6 of the Policy of 2013, which requires only recommendation/consent of the mother or father of an unmarried Government servant. Accordingly, order passed by respondent No.2 dated 15.07.2022 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the Policy of 2013, expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha