1 CGHC010074942021 2026:CGHC:37294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2019 of 2021  Kumari Sarita Yadav D/o Late Shri Chhedilal Yadav, Aged About 41 Years R/o Near Jalaram Catering, Mama- Bhanja Talab Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Bank Of India Through General Manager, Head Office Hishangabad Road, Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) 2. Zonal Manager, State Bank Of India, Zonal Office Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Regional Manager, State Bank Of India Regional Business Office R-1, Aditya Mangalam Nagar, Near Balram Talkies, Sindhi Colony Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch Railway Colony, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by with Mr. Syed Jayed Ziya Ali, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr. Swapnil Thawani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and set- SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.24 15:08:00 +0530 2 aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2020 issued by the Respondent no. 3. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondent no. 3 to issue the appointment order to the petitioner under the scheme of compassionate appointment for the death of her father during course of employment. 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Facts in brief are that father of the petitioner was working on the post of Messenger under the respondents. He died in harness on 13.06.2013. Mother of the petitioner moved an application to provide compassionate appointment to her daughter Ku. Sarita Yadav/petitioner on 14.10.2013. A reminder letter was sent on 12.11.2020. The respondent No. 3 rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 14.12.2020 assigning reason that claim of compassionate appointment according to policy can be considered if an employee dies while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity or when employee dies within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, which ever is later. 3. Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Senior Advocate would contend that the reason assigned by the respondent authorities vide order dated 14.12.2020 is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India. He would contend that object of grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the members of deceased employee. He would contend that the rejection of application on extraneous grounds requires interference by this Court. It is also argued by Mr. Shrivastava, Senior Advocate that the petitioner or her mother never accepted compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment and document, 3 which has been placed along with the return filed by the respondent authorities is dubious. He would argue that if the petitioner was not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to make payment of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- in lieu of compassionate appointment. He would submit that the order dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure P/6) may be quashed and petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate appearing for respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. Mr. Patankar would contend that the policy for grant of compassionate appointment dated 13.05.2011 was in existence at the time of death of father of the petitioner. He wold refer clause -5 of scheme, which deal with applicability. He would contend that according to scheme, claim of compassionate appointment would be applicable if an employee dies while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity or employee died within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years. He would contend that father of the petitioner died on 13.06.2013 and his death was not a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity and he died at around age of 56 years, and therefore, his application was rightly rejected by the authorities concerned. It is also contended by Mr. Patankar that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was given to mother of the petitioner in lieu of compassionate appointment and an agreement was entered into in this regard on 16.09.2013. He would submit that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 4 6. Father of the petitioner died on 13.06.2013, thereafter, mother of the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on behalf of her daughter. Said application was rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 14.12.2020 on the ground that according to applicability part of scheme, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. 7. Clause -5 of the scheme, which deals with applicability reads as under :- “5. APPLICABILITY: The Scheme of compassionate appointment will be applicable in the following cases: iii. Employee dying while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity; iv. Employee dying within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children.” 8. It is also argued that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was given to mother of the petitioner in lieu of compassionate appointment. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 04.12.2020, whereas, alleged affidavit whereby a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was granted to mother of the petitioner in lieu of compassionate appointment was executed on 16.09.2013. In order dated 14.12.2020 there is no whisper to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment as her mother has already accepted Rs. 4,00,000/- in lieu of compassionate appointment, therefore, contention 5 made by learned counsel for respondents in this regard cannot be accepted. But at the same time sight cannot be lost to the reason assigned in the order dated 14.12.2020. The application of the petitioner has been rejected applying clause 5 of scheme. 9. The petitioner has not challenged clause 5 of the scheme for grant of compassionate appointment dated 13.05.2011. The authorities concerned are bound to decide the application for compassionate appointment, strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. As the petitioner was not eligible for grant of compassionate appointment according to clause 5 of the policy dated 13.05.2011, in my opinion the authorities concerned rightly exercised their discretion. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 14.12.2020. 10. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant