1 CGHC010273562026 2026:CGHC:39057 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5742 of 2026 Snehlata Gupta W/o Late Shivsagar Gupra Aged About 40 Years R/o Khas Dakshini, Chandani, Village Biharpur Tehsil Biharpur District Surajpur C.G. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 4 - District Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 5 - District Education Officer Surajpur District Surajpur C.G. 6 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Surajpur District Surajpur C.G. 7 - Chief Excutive Officer Janpad Panchayat Odgi, District Surajpur C.G. 8 - Block Education Officer Odgi, District Surajpur C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 5 & 8 : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No. 6 & 7: Mr. Saumya Rai, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.05 14:19:24 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 03.09.2026 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court; 10.2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period; 10.3. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds against a suitable post commensurate with her educational qualifications, in accordance with law and the applicable policy; 10.4. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, including the award of costs of the petition.” 2. Facts of the present case are that the husband of the petitioner namely Late Shri Shiv Sagar Gupta was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under the Panchayat Department and died in harness on 15.04.2014. The petitioner claims to have submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment immediately after the death of her husband and within the prescribed period. However, her claim was not effectively considered and decided for several years. During the 3 pendency of her claim, the petitioner worked as a daily wage Peon from 2015 to 2017 and subsequently acquired higher educational qualifications by passing Higher Secondary Examination in the year 2017 and obtaining Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) in the year 2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted her application for compassionate appointment within the prescribed period immediately after the death of her husband, but the respondents failed to take any effective decision thereon. He further submits that the communication dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Collector, Surajpur itself reveals that the petitioner's application was allegedly rejected on 12.08.2014, whereas the alleged rejection was sought to be communicated only vide letter dated 12.08.2021. It is submitted that the petitioner has categorically stated that no such communication was ever served upon her. He therefore submits that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own administrative lapse and defeat the petitioner's claim on the ground of delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even thereafter the petitioner continuously pursued her claim by submitting representations and approaching the concerned authorities. Pursuant to the communication dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Collector, the petitioner immediately approached the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surajpur and submitted all requisite documents, but no decision has yet been taken on her claim. It is further submitted that the 4 petitioner has subsequently acquired the requisite educational qualifications and, therefore, in any event, her case deserves to be considered against a suitable sanctioned and vacant post commensurate with her qualification. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the petition and submit that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is required to be considered in accordance with the applicable policy and the eligibility criteria prescribed therein. He further submits that no vested right to compassionate appointment accrues to the petitioner and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 15.04.2014 and the petitioner claims to have submitted her application for compassionate appointment immediately thereafter. The communication dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Collector, Surajpur indicates that the petitioner's claim had allegedly been rejected on 12.08.2014, but the said decision was sought to be communicated to her only vide letter dated 12.08.2021. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that no such communication was ever received by her. Thereafter also, the petitioner continued to pursue her claim and, pursuant to the Collector's direction dated 11.12.2024, submitted the requisite documents before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surajpur. Despite the same, her claim 5 has not been finally decided by a reasoned and speaking order. 8. The issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the respondents could have kept the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment undecided for such a prolonged period, particularly when the record itself indicates that the petitioner had approached the authorities within the prescribed period and had thereafter continuously pursued her claim. 9. In the present case, the respondents' failure to take a final and effective decision on the petitioner's claim, despite her repeated representations and subsequent compliance with the direction issued by the Collector, cannot be said to be reasonable. The respondents cannot take advantage of their own failure to communicate an effective decision to the petitioner and thereafter seek to defeat her claim on the ground of delay. 10. This Court, in WPS No. 5937 of 2021, decided on 18.06.2026, in somewhat similar circumstances, considered the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim merely on the ground that the dependent did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and held such reasoning to be unreasonable and arbitrary. The order of rejection was quashed and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment against a sanctioned and vacant Class-IV post. 11. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the present case. Even if the petitioner was not eligible for appointment against the particular post originally contemplated, her claim could not have been 6 kept pending indefinitely without considering her for a suitable sanctioned and vacant post commensurate with her educational qualification. The petitioner has also subsequently acquired Higher Secondary and D.El.Ed. qualifications. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment against a sanctioned and vacant post commensurate with her educational qualification in accordance with the applicable policy/instructions. The respondents shall also take into consideration the petitioner's original application, the subsequent representations and the documents submitted pursuant to the Collector's communication dated 11.12.2024. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Rahul