1 CGHC010372102022 2026:CGHC:39048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8487 of 2022  Smt. Anjana Sahu D/o Late Shri Sudarshan Sao, W/o Shri Nawratan Sahu Aged About 27 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Palsapali, Post Amarkot, Thana And Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pithaura, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr, Vivek Mishra, Adv. For Respondents No. 3 and 4 : Ms. Priyanka Rai Mishra, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 2 03.09.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 10.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment as per policy applicable and law laid down by this Hon'ble court. 10.3 That any other /relief order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the cost of the petition may kindly be passed. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner’s father namely Sudarshan Sao, who was working on the post of Secretary at Gram Panchayat Palsapani, Janpad Panchayat Pithaura died in harness on 07.03.2022. Petitioner, who is the elder daughter of deceased employee moved application for grant of compassionate appointment according to policy dated 27.02.2015 but the said application was rejected by Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Mahasamund vide order dated 10.06.2022 on the ground that son of the deceased employee is already in government service. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father died in harness in year 2015 and the respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of petitioner relying on Clause 6(a) of policy 3 dated 14.06.2013. He further submits that said policy is applicable on the employees of State Government whereas the case of petitioner is governed by a separate policy of Panchayat and Rural Development Department dated 27.02.2015 which relates to grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased Gram Panchayat Secretaries. He contends that the authority concerned has erroneously applied the policy dated 14.03.2013 while rejecting the claim of petitioner whereas such condition was not part of policy dated 27.02.2015 and it only inserted subsequently on 03.09.2024. He prays for a direction to respondent No. 3 to re-consider the claim of petitioner strictly in light of policy dated 27.02.2015. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that one of the family members of deceased employee was a government servant therefore claim of petitioner was rightly turned down by respondent No. 3. She further submits that this petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) A careful perusal of order dated 10.06.2022 would reveal that the authority concerned has rejected the claim of petitioner relying on Clause 6(a) of policy dated 14.06.2013 whereas a specific policy dated 27.02.2015 exists for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased Secretaries of Gram Panchayats. 4 Therefore, in my opinion, action of the part of respondent No. 3 whereby policy dated 14.06.2013 has been relied appears to be bad in law. Furthermore, the policy dated 27.02.2015 did not contain any condition denying compassionate appointment to a dependent on the ground that a family member is in government service and such condition was only inserted subsequently on 03.09.2024. 7) It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. Thus, in the present case, respondent No. 3 was under obligation to consider the claim of petitioner in light of policy dated 27.02.2015. 8) Accordingly, the order dated 10.06.2022 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 3 is directed to re-consider and decide the claim of petitioner strictly in accordance with the policy dated 27.02.2015 by way of a speaking order, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9) In result, this writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y A Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.07 10:29:19 +0530