1 CGHC010308692022 2026:CGHC:36235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6155 of 2022  Smt Mithlesh Sharma W/o Late Dilip Sharma Aged About 47 Years Ex-Peon, Court Of 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o - Subhash Ward, Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Registrar General High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Principal Judge Family Court Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Bharat Lal Sharma S/o Late Choumal Sharma Aged About 73 Years R/o - Mahalaxmi Printing Press Gali, Pachari Para, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Chandrakala Sharma W/o - Bharat Lal Sharma Aged About 70 Years R/o - Mahalaxmi Printing Press Gali, Pachari Para, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate along with Ms. Mithilesh Sharma, petitioner-in-person For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 and 4 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 2 14.8.2026 1) Heard on I.A. No. 5/2024, application seeking permission to appear in person. 2) On due consideration, application is allowed. 3) With the consent of parties, the matter is being heard finally. 4) Facts of the present case are that petitioner’s husband namely Dilip Sharma was working on the post of Peon under respondent No. 2 and he died in harness on 15.8.2009. Thereafter, petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Peon in the Court of Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg vide order dated 3.9.2011. On 31.1.2017, departmental inquiry was contemplated against the petitioner on alleged violation of Clause 15(13) of Compassionate Appointment Guidelines and subsequently, her services were terminated by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 7.1.2022. Thereafter, petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the respondent No. 1 and the same was partly allowed vide order dated 27.8.2022, subject to following conditions :- (1) The appellant will submit an undertaking on affidavit in the office of disciplinary authority to the effect that every month she will pay 1/3rd of the gross salary of that month as maintenance cost to her parents/parent-in-law. (2) The appellant will be reinstated in service from the date of submission of the aforesaid undertaking but her past services shall be counted for all purposes except back wages of the terminated period on the principle of no work no 3 pay. (3) The appellant will also submit the proof of payment of aforesaid maintenance cost to her parents/parent-in-law every month in the office of the disciplinary authority. (4) In case of any violation or otherwise, the disciplinary authority will take appropriate disciplinary action against the appellant as per rules. Petitioner was re-instated in service and thereafter she filed this petition assailing the order dated 27.8.2022 and sought a direction to the respondent authorities to re-instate the petitioner without any terms and conditions. 5) Petitioner-in-person submits that she is a low paid employee and it is very difficult for her to pay 1/3rd of her gross salary as maintenance to her in-laws’. She further submits that as she has her own liabilities and she has to take care of herself therefore, the conditions imposed upon her vide impugned order may be relaxed to some extent. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that the appellate authority issued the conditions in the order dated 27.8.2022 after duly considering the matter and securing the petitioner's consent. They further submit that since the petitioner raised no objection at the time the said order was passed, she cannot now be permitted to resile from that position. They also submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8) Admittedly, petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis after death of her husband, who also happened to be the son of respondents No. 3 and 4 (petitioner’s in-laws’). Petitioner’s services were terminated vide order dated 7.1.2022. Appellate authority partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 27.8.2022 and directed her to make payment of 1/3rd amount of gross salary to her in-laws’, who are aged 73 and 70 years respectively. 9) In this petition, petitioner has not assigned any plausible reason in order to get reduced the amount described in order dated 27.8.2022. Moreover, the petitioner has no other financial liability except that toward her in-laws, therefore, in my considered view, awarding one-third of her gross salary as maintenance cannot be said to be excessive. Furthermore, having consented to this condition before the appellate authority, petitioner is bound by it and cannot be permitted to resile therefrom. 10) In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for interference. In result, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.08.17 10:40:04 +0530