1 CGHC010159292015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 07.05.2026 Order pronounced on 07.08.2026 Order uploaded on 07.08.2026 WPS No. 2660 of 2015 Sandhya Sidar W/o Late Shri Radhe Lal Sidar, aged about 37 years R/o Village Katkaliya Post Katkaliya Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 131 of 2017 Smt. Pushpawati Sidar Wd/o Late Shri Teshwar Singh Sidar, aged about 38 years R/o Village Madanpur Injako, Post Karamitikara, Police Station And Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 2. The Collector, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Aadiwasi Vikas Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Jashpur, Distt Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5 . The Block Education Officer, Pathalgaon, Distt Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Dhani Ram Patel and Shri Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Anand Gupta, Dy. GA For Respondent No. 4 : Shri U.N.S. Deo, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Shri Shivam Mishra, Advocate (Hon. Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Order Petitioners seeking compassionate appointment in the aforesaid petitions happen to be the widows whose husbands died in harness. Since the issue involved therein is one and the same, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of WPS No. 2660 of 2015: In this petition the petitioner is challenging the impugned communication/order dated 18.07.2014 whereby her claim for compassionate appointment has been negated on the ground that no instructions for such appointment on the post of peon have been received. 3. The husband of the petitioner namely Late Shri Radhe Lal Sidar was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II/Teacher Panchayat under the respondent authorities and died in harness on 22.06.2013 leaving behind the petitioner and other family members with no source of livelihood. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 25.03.2014 seeking compassionate appointment under the applicable policy annexing all supporting documents. However, vide impugned communication dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) the claim of the petitioner as stated above came to be declined. It is stated that though deceased employee was 3 working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, his nomenclature later stood changed to "Teacher Panchayat" by virtue of Government Order dated 03.11.2011, and therefore the respondents have proceeded on a wholly erroneous factual premise holding the petitioner to be disentitled for compassionate appointment. The Government Order dated 03.11.2011 is already said to be brought on record as Annexure D/3, which clearly establishes that after issuance of the said order, the deceased employee held the post of "Teacher Panchayat". Since the deceased employee died on 22.06.2013, i.e., subsequent to the Government Order dated 03.11.2011, there was no occasion for the respondents to treat him as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and therefore the communication impugned is liable to be set aside. According to the case of the petitioner, respondent No.5 in the document annexed to the return as Annexure R-5/2 itself has mentioned the deceased employee to have held the post of Teacher Panchayat, and therefore, failure of the respondents to consider this vital aspect amounts to gross illegality, arbitrariness and non- application of mind. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an application dated 16.12.2024 for taking the Government Circular dated 05.11.2024 issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, on record which states about the entitlement for compassionate appointment of the dependents of Panchayat teacher who died in harness. 4. Facts of WPS No. 131/2017: In this petition, the husband of the petitioner namely Late Shri Teshwar Singh Sidar who was a Teacher (Panchayat) died in harness on 06.07.2013 leaving behind his wife (the petitioner) and two minor children namely Ku. Archana Singh and Ritesh Singh. After death of deceased employee, an application was filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 5 for grant of compassionate appointment. Since the petitioner was educated upto 11th class, on 06.01.2014 she was asked by respondent No.3 to acquire eligibility (Higher Secondary Examination) and to submit certificate within three years. In order to fulfill the eligibility criteria, the petitioner participated in Higher Secondary Examination and passed the same. Subsequently, on 18.09.2014, a 4 letter was sent by respondent No.3 to the petitioner asking her to acquire educational eligibility (qualification of B.Ed/D.Ed. and Teacher Eligibility Test) within three years from the date of death of her husband i.e. 06.07.2013. Since the respondent/authorities were causing delay in granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner for one reason or the other, on 10.11.2014 the petitioner filed a writ petition (WPS No. 5851/2014) challenging the delay on the part of the respondent authorities in granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. On 21.01.2016, the said writ petition was disposed of, and since the petitioner had expressed her willingness to accept employment on Class IV post, she was directed to make a detailed representation to the respondent/authorities claiming compassionate appointment looking to her qualification, and the respondents were also directed to consider such representation on merit as per the circular/rules prevalent on the date of death of the employee, within a period of four months therefrom. In May 2016, the petitioner was orally directed by the respondent No.5 to submit application for compassionate appointment and accordingly she again submitted application for the said purpose on 19.05.2016. On 28.06.2016, the respondent No.4 passed the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on Class IV post on the ground that in case of death of a Shiksha Karmi, compassionate appointment can be granted only on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – III. In this petition, the order under challenge is the one passed on 28.06.2016 by which the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment on the ground that she was not having the requisite qualification for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. Further, referring to the letter dated 13.02.2004 issued by respondent No.1, the order Annexure P-1 states that though before this Court the petitioner had consented for the post of Peon yet as per the relevant rules, there is no provision for compassionate appointment on the said post, and that as she could not obtain the requisite qualification within a period of three years as was given to her for that purpose, her application was rejected. Hence these petitions. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned communication 5 denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. He submits that several similarly situated persons have been granted compassionate appointment, and therefore, there exists no justification in denying the same to the petitioner. He submits that compassionate appointment is conceived as a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who died in harness so that the dependents left behind are not forced in penury and financial distress. It is submitted that the petitioner has been continuously pursuing her legitimate claim since the year 2014 and that on account of such a harsh denial of her legitimate right, the entire family of the petitioner is suffering a great financial hardship after the death of the sole earning member. It is further submitted that the impugned rejection order defeats the very object and purpose underlying the welfare scheme of compassionate appointment. 6. In WPS No.131/2017 additionally it is submitted that in so far as the qualification of B.Ed/D.Ed. is concerned, the same is not required even for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). It is submitted that the petitioner is a helpless lady and she has no source of earning so as to maintain her own life as well as the life of her children but it is the respondent/authorities who are causing delay in granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner is ready to accept employment on Class IV post. It is submitted that in so far as the impugned instruction/circular dated 13.02.2004 is concerned, the same is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law for the reason that it does not make the provision for the dependents of a deceased Siksha Karmi who do not have qualification for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III but who are willing to accept Class IV post and are having qualification for the said post. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Premlata reported in (2022) 1 SCC 30 as also the decision of this Court in the mater of Sarda Thawait Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 56 of 2017). 6 7. The gist of the arguments of Counsel for all the respondents, be it the State or the concerned Janpad Panchayat is by and large the same. They have opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that since the petitioners have not acquired requisite qualification in spite of the time granted which even was extended from time to time, they are not entitled to compassionate appointment. It is submitted that there is no policy of compassionate appointment on a class IV post and the dependents of Shiksha Karmi dying in harness can be considered for compassionate appointment only on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. They thus sought dismissal of the petitions seeking compassionate appointment. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. WPS No. 2660/2015: Perusal of the impugned communication dated 18.07.2014 reveals that claim of the petitioner has been declined solely on the premise that there was no provision for compassionate appointment in respect of Shiksha Karmi. However, the record discloses that by virtue of the Government Order dated 03.11.2011, the nomenclature of the post of Shiksha Karmi stood changed to Teacher Panchayat. Admittedly, the deceased employee died on 22.06.2013, i.e. after the aforesaid Government Order dated 03.11.2011 had come into force and therefore, the respondents were required to examine the claim of the petitioner by taking into consideration the status of the deceased employee as existing on the date of his death as Teacher Panchayat. It is worthwhile to mention here that the documents placed on record by the respondents themselves describe the deceased employee as a Teacher Panchayat but even then the impugned communication has been issued on the distorted ground that the deceased employee was a Shiksha Karmi. No reason has been assigned by the respondents as to why the subsequent Government Order dated 03.11.2011 has been ignored. Such a casual approach on the part of the respondents reflects a clear non- adherence of relevant material on record which renders the entire decision-making process quite unsustainable. Further, the Government Circular dated 05.11.2024 7 annexed to the petition and marked as Annexure D-2 which has been brought on record during pendency of the writ petition which unequivocally states that the dependents of the Teacher Panchayat who died in harness are entitled for compassionate appointment, also stands to the rescue of the petitioner. 10. WPS No. 131/2020: a recapitulation of facts in this case would indicate that husband of petitioner Late Shri Teshwar Singh Sidar who was working as Shiksha Karmi, died in harness on 06.07.2013 leaving behind the petitioner and two minor children. Soon after the death of her husband, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. It is reflected from the documents on record that initially the petitioner possessed educational qualification up to Class XI. However, by communication dated 06.01.2014, the respondents required her to acquire the qualification of Higher Secondary Examination within three years. The petitioner complied with the said direction and successfully passed the Higher Secondary Examination. Thereafter, by another communication dated 18.09.2014 (Annexure P-5) she was asked to acquire B.Ed./D.Ed. qualification and Teacher Eligibility Test within a further period of three years. Since no decision was taken on her application, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No.5851 of 2014, which was disposed of on 21.01.2016 with a direction that the petitioner may submit a detailed representation expressing her willingness to accept appointment on a Class-IV post and that the respondents would consider the same in accordance with the policy/circulars applicable on the date of death of the deceased employee. 11. Pursuant to the order dated 21.01.2016 passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 19.05.2016, which however came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 28.06.2016 on the ground that compassionate appointment in the case of a deceased Shiksha Karmi could be granted only on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and that there was no provision for appointment on the post of Peon/Class-IV employee. The impugned order further says that the 8 petitioner failed to acquire the requisite educational qualifications for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III within the prescribed period. 12. Dealing with the matter pertaining to the compassionate appointment in the matter of State of UP (supra) it has been categorically held by the Supreme Court that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying-in-harness and leaving behind his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases out of pure humanitarian approach taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents who may be eligible for the same. The Supreme Court went on to say that whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis. Relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:- “10. Thus as per the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.” 13. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has also been followed by this Court in the matter of Sarda Thawait (supra) directing the respondents to consider 9 the case for compassionate appointment on any post either in the State Government or any of its instrumentality under its control looking to his eligibility. 14. As has been emphasized by the Supreme Court more often than not, the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the in-dire-strait family of a deceased employee who died in harness. The scheme is a measure of social welfare intended to mitigate hardship and not to deny relief on technical or hyper-technical grounds. In the case in hand, the record reveals that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment without delay. The respondents themselves directed her to acquire the Higher Secondary qualification, which she duly obtained. Nevertheless, instead of taking a prompt decision, the respondents required her to obtain further qualifications such as B.Ed./D.Ed. and Teacher Eligibility Test. Not only this, the petitioner even expressed her willingness before this Court in the earlier round of litigation to accept appointment on any post commensurate with her qualification including that of peon. In this situation, the respondents were required to examine her claim and explore the possibility of appointing her against any available post for which she possessed the prescribed qualifications. Such outright rejection of her claim solely on the ground that she did not possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III defeats the very purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme and eventually proves as an insult to injury in such cases. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that there existed an absolute statutory prohibition against offering any other suitable post to a dependent who was otherwise eligible under the compassionate appointment policy. The impugned order putting the petitioner in tenterhooks reflects a mechanical approach on the part of the respondents negating the humanitarian object underlying the scheme. 15. Having thus visited the facts, the law governing the compassionate appointment, and being very much conscious of the object underlying the scheme which portrays a wider concept that the dependents of the deceased employee dying in harness should not be allowed to remain buried in financial straits and an 10 immediate succor must be provided to them, this Court is of the considered opinion that the denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioners whose husbands died in harness, would be a travesty of justice. Refraining to say much, this Court finds the impugned orders/communication to be a not sustainable one. They are accordingly set aside. Needless to say, the respondents shall enable the petitioners tide over the crisis they landed in, by providing them immediate succor in the form of compassionate appointment on the post they are found to be eligible for. 16. Accordingly, both the writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.08.07 17:36:54 +0530