1 CGHC010365392024 2026:CGHC:36107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5351 of 2024 1 - Smt. Reena Rajak W/o Late Santosh Rajak, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bharridand, Tahsil Marwahi District Gourela - Pendra - Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secrertary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector / Additional Collector, District Gourela - Pendra - Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Marwahi, District Gourela - Pendra - Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tahsildar, Marwahi, District Gourela - Pendra - Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate. For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/08/2026 RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.19 18:19:47 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and proprietary of the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 which is arising out of order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of any compensation on account of suddenly death of her husband Santosh Rajak. Hence, this petition. 2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated by the petitioner is that the petitioner’s husband, Santosh Rajak, died on 11.09.2020 after suddenly suffering a cardiac arrest while attending to his paddy field at village Bharridand, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra-Marwahi. The incident was duly reported to the police and investigated. The petitioner, being the legal heir of the deceased, claimed compensation under the State Government Circular dated 09.06.2015, particularly Clause 5(6), applicable to cases of sudden death. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar initiated proceedings, and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Marwahi, recommended grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner. However, the Additional Collector, Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi, rejected the claim vide order dated 02.11.2022, allegedly without due consideration of the aforesaid circular and the material available on record. The petitioner’s appeal was thereafter rejected by the respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 16.07.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court, contending that the impugned orders are 3 arbitrary, contrary to the applicable policy, and have been passed without proper consideration of her entitlement to compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the State Government Circular dated 09.06.2015, particularly Clause 5(6), under which the petitioner is entitled to get compensation on account of the sudden death of her husband. It is submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Marwahi, had already recommended grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was wrongly rejected by the Additional Collector without properly considering the material on record and the applicable circular. He further submits that the petitioner is the widow and a dependent family member of the deceased and, being a person in need, has been deprived of the statutory/policy benefit despite the recommendation in her favour. It is also submitted that this Court has granted similar relief in W.P.(C) No. 1856/2018, decided on 10.10.2018, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be extended the benefit of compensation in accordance with the Circular dated 09.06.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the cause of death of the 4 petitioner’s husband, Late Santosh Rajak, has been specifically recorded as cardiac arrest due to CAD (Coronary Artery Disease) in the post-mortem report. The said medical evidence has not been controverted by any material placed on record. Though the petitioner contends that her husband died suddenly while he had gone to the field and that such death would entitle her to compensation under Clause 5(6) of the State Government Circular dated 09.06.2015, the mere fact that the death was sudden in point of time would not, by itself, bring the case within the ambit of the said provision. The nature and cause of death, as established from the post-mortem report, are required to be considered for determining the petitioner’s entitlement under the aforesaid Circular. In the present case, the deceased suffered a cardiac arrest and died as a consequence thereof, and there is no material to establish that his death was caused by any external, accidental or other circumstance contemplated under Clause 5(6) of the Circular. Consequently, the recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Marwahi, in favour of the petitioner, being contrary to the material evidence regarding the actual cause of death, cannot confer any vested right upon the petitioner to claim compensation. This Court, therefore, finds that the competent authority has rightly considered the claim in the light of the applicable Circular and the material available on record. The impugned order dated 16.07.2024 does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting 5 interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the challenge to the impugned order fails. 6. In view of above, this petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju