1 / 6 2026:CGHC:1157 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 108 of 2026 Smt. Reshma Malik W/o Late Kishore Malik Aged About 44 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And Dist. Bilaspur C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No.3 Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate WPS No. 119 of 2026 Ajit Kumar S/o Shri Bal Kumar Aged About 38 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah And Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.01.13 10:29:00 +0530 2 / 6 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No.3 Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate WPS No. 117 of 2026 Smt. Laxmi Janokar W/o Late Nirmal Janokar, Aged About 44 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Tah. And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan, Awam Vikas Vibhag Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Nagariya Prashan Awam Vilkas Vibhag Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) 3 / 6 For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No.3 Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 08/01/2026 1. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in bunch of these writ petitions, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, these writ petitions are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By way of the present writ petitions, petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 11-9-2025 (Annexure P/3 in all the writ petition) passed by respondent No.3 whereby petitioners’ compassionate appointment granted vide order dated 10-1-2025 has been canceled on the ground that the approval has not been granted by the State Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that these writ petitions are squarely covered with the order dated 18-11-2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 12389 of 2025 (Jaichand Sarthi vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). He submits that these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for respective respondents do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with these writ petitions. 6. Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.12389 of 2025 while dealing with the identical issue, as involved in this writ petition, observed thus: 4 / 6 "4.This Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 directed the Director, Urban Administration and Development to file affidavit. In pursuance of the direction, the Director has filed affidavit wherein he has stated in paragraph 7 and 8 as under' 7. The Urban Administration and Development Department received a total of 96 cases of compassionate appointments from urban bodies, ranging from 3 to 5 years in duration. These cases were examined and forwarded to the Administration Department. Later, after approval from the General Administration Department, 29 cases were approved. 8. For post-facto approval, letter No. Establishment/01/ Compassionate Appointment/2025/14931 dated 08.01.2025, was received from the Municipal Corporation, Korba. There is no provision for post- facto approval in the General Administration Department's circular dated 14.06.2013. Head of the Department is not the competent authority to grant such approval. The competent authority for compassionate appointment is the concerned Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. 5. From a bare perusal of the affidavit, it is evident that the Director has assigned no reason whatsoever for denying approval. Such absence of reasoning reflects arbitrariness and highhandedness on the part of the authorities, which has the effect of defeating the lawful claim accrued in favour of the petitioner. 6.It is a well-settled proposition of law that compassionate appointment must be considered strictly in terms of the policy framed by the State Government. This Court cannot add or subtract any words into the policy so as to disturb its harmonious construction. As such, the petitioner's case is required to be examined only in accordance with the Policy dated 14.06.2013 of which Clauses 15(4) and 16 provide as under:- 15.4 प  अ क    क ए कई प क सद   प स !" क# $ख & दश क( स)च  +,-. क# क अ द/ 0ए,1 ए द2स "1 प क( $प प क 3ख क द/ 0,1। 5 / 6 16. अक   क ए सम सम -स5 प67  अ क    क ए अ!"क अ!" 3 8# ,1 9 श8 प67   अ!" 5 8# ,1 क , इसक ए औच< ए कण दश# >ए $शसक( +, क - स स5 $शस +, क( अ  $? क  आAक ,1। 7. From a plain reading of Clauses 15(4) and 16, it is clear that these provisions apply to cases where there is no major member in the family eligible for compassionate appointment. In such situations, the limitation for submitting an application is three years, extendable up to a maximum period of five years where approval of the State Government will be necessary. However, the present case does not fall within the ambit of Clause 16. The petitioner had submitted his application well within the prescribed time-limit, and therefore, treating his case as one falling under Clause 16 of the Circular is wholly misconceived and reflects non- application of mind. Such a view cannot be sustained and deserves to be rejected. 8.In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 19.09.2025, insofar as it pertains to the petitioner, is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated on the post of Peon. It is clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages however, his seniority shall be reckoned from the initial date of his appointment without any break in service. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed". 7. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for respective parties, nature of relief sought for by the petitioners in these writ petitions, I am inclined to dispose of these writ petitions in terms of order passed in WPS No. 12389 of 2025 (supra). 6 / 6 8. Accordingly, all the writ petition are allowed in terms of order dated 18- 11-2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 12389 of 2025 (Jaichand Sarthi vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Impugned orders dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-1 in all the writ petitions) so far as it relates to the petitioners herein are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners on the post of Peon. It is clarified that the petitioners are not entitled to get back wages, however, their seniority shall be reckoned from the initial date of their appointment without any break in service. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen