1 2026:CGHC:14928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5083 of 2017 1 - Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramashankar Sharma, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Kalinjar, Tahsil Nareni, District Banda Civil And Revenue District Bandha Uttar Pradesh - 210129., Uttar Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur., Chhattisgarh 2 - The District And Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Anil S. Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01 .04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “1. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondent concerned pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal. NIRMALA RAO 2 2.This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 and in effect direct the respondent No.2 to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Cost of the proceedings. 4. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wife of the petitioner, namely Smt. Premlata Sharma, who was posted as Assistant Grade-III under respondent No.2, died in harness on 18.2.2006. He would submit that the petitioner, being the husband of the deceased government servant moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 28.7.2006, which was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 10.4.2017. He would contend that respondent No.2 rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was not found to be dependent on the income of the deceased, as he was residing separately. He would further submit that under the Policy of Compassionate Appointment, 2003, there is no provision to conduct an enquiry to ascertain dependency, and therefore, any such enquiry conducted and the orders passed by respondent No.2 are erroneous and bad in law. It is also contended that the application moved by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 18.8.2010, but it was communicated on 10.4.2017, therefore, the petitioner has challenged both the orders. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Tiwari, 3 learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by the husband of the deceased government servant and an enquiry was conducted to ascertain dependency. In the said enquiry, it was found that prior to the death of the government servant, the petitioner was residing separately, therefore, respondent No.2 rejected the application. He would also argued that the application of the petitioner was decided in light of Clauses 4 & 5 of the Policy of 1995. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. It is nowhere stated, either by the petitioner or by the respondents that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased government servant had been dissolved. There was some dispute between the petitioner and his wife and that had been reason for the petitioner to reside separately but on that count alone, the application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment could not have been rejected by respondent No.2. However, it is surprising as to why respondent No.2 applied the Policy of 1995 which was not in existence at the time of death of the wife of the petitioner. It appears that respondent No.2 has passed an order without proper application of mind and by applying the provisions which were not in force at that relevant point of time. Further, under the Policy of 2003, there is no provision to conduct an enquiry to ascertain the dependency part and therefore, the orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 18.8.2010 & 10.4.2017 are bad in law and are hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 4 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the Policy of 2003. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi