1 CGHC010331042026 2026:CGHC:39046 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6502 of 2026 Smt. Tijiya Bai Yadav D/o Late Shri Pillu Ram Yadav, W/o Bharat Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Nawagaon, Post Pali, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resource Department, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Hasdev Kachhar Water Resource Department, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Maniyari Water Resource Department, Maniyari Water Resource Division Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. K.G. Yadav, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 03/09/2026 1. The petitioner, who is the divorced daughter of the deceased employee, has filed the present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the competent authority principally on the ground that, along with her application, she did not produce the document relating to dissolution of her marriage/divorce. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.09.05 16:42:40 +0530 2 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner's father, namely, late Shri Pillu Ram Yadav, was serving as Watchman in the Water Resources Department died in harness on 26.08.2024. The petitioner, being his daughter, submitted an application through the proper channel seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The application was considered by the competent authority; however, by the impugned order dated 02.07.2025, the petitioner's claim was not accepted on the ground that she had not submitted the document evidencing her divorce. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason assigned by the respondents for rejecting the claim is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment merely on account of her marital status. It is further submitted that the very similar issue as to whether a married daughter can be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment merely because she is married has already been considered by this Court in W.P.(S) No.296 of 2014, decided on 30.11.2015, wherein this Court, after considering the constitutional provisions and the relevant policy, held that exclusion of a married daughter merely on the ground of her marriage is impermissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 29 of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.296 of 2014, wherein this Court, after examining the issue in detail, held the offending provisions of the policy, insofar as they excluded a married daughter from consideration for compassionate appointment merely on the ground of her marriage, to 3 be violative of the constitutional mandate. Consequently, the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner therein was quashed and the respondents were directed to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with law. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the claim of the petitioner has been considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable policy and the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the documents available before the authority. It is, however, not disputed that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.296 of 2014. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner's father, late Shri Pillu Ram Yadav, was serving in the Water Resources Department and died in harness on 26.08.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said claim came to be rejected by order dated 02.07.2025 essentially on the ground that the petitioner had not produced a document relating to divorce. 7. The question which arises for consideration is, therefore, whether the petitioner's claim could have been rejected merely for the reason that she had not produced a document evidencing dissolution of her marriage. 8. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra, so far as this Court is concerned. In W.P.(S) No.296 of 2014, this Court examined the relevant 4 provisions governing compassionate appointment and considered the question of exclusion of a married daughter merely on account of her marital status. This Court, after examining the constitutional and legal position, held that exclusion of a married daughter from consideration for compassionate appointment merely on the ground of her marriage could not be sustained. Consequently, in paragraph 29 of the said order, this Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner therein for compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with law. The controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. The rejection of the petitioner's claim, insofar as it proceeds merely on the ground that she has not produced a document relating to divorce, cannot, therefore, be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment afresh, in accordance with the applicable policy/rules and in the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P.(S) No.296 of 2014, particularly paragraph 29 thereof. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of forty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed. SD/- SSSD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu