1 CGHC010013542017 2026:CGHC:38604 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7216 of 2017 Yogesh Kumar Yadav Son of Late Shri Hari Ram Yadav, Aged About 30 Years R/o L I G 369, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chief Executive officer, District Panchayat Korba,chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education officer, Block Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. RCS Deo, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Honble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quash/set-aside the order dated 03.09.2016 passed by respondent no. 2 Chief Executive officer, Jila Panchayat Korba and petitioner may kindly be appointed on compassionate ground against his wife namely Sunita Yadav. 2 10.2 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 2. Facts, in brief, are that the wife of the petitioner, namely Sunita Yadav, who was working on the post of Teacher (Panchayat) at Government Middle School, Sajabahri, Block Pali, District Korba, died in harness on 02.02.2015. After her death, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. He was advised by the department to acquire the B.Ed./D.Ed./TET qualification and, at the same time, was granted three years’ time to acquire such qualification. Subsequently, the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat. The petitioner submitted his application form along with a consent letter, thereafter, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 03.09.2016, rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to seek compassionate appointment to the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat. It was further observed that the circular dated 08.01.2016 was not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as the deceased employee, had died prior to the issuance of the said circular. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the date of death of the deceased employee, the Policy for Grant of Compassionate Appointment, 2008 was in existence and, according to the said policy, the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. He would further submit that the petitioner lacked the requisite qualification and, therefore, was advised to accept appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat. However, when he submitted his consent, his application was subsequently rejected. He would contend that if the petitioner lacked the requisite qualification, respondent No. 3 ought to have considered his claim for appointment against a Class-III or Class-IV post; thus, he would pray that the petition may be allowed. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and contend that the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate grounds as he did not possess the requisite qualification, i.e. B.Ed/ D.Ed. It is further submitted that though the petitioner was advised to submit an application for compassionate appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat, but the said circular was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 28.06.2017 and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on file. 6. Admittedly, the wife of the petitioner, who was working on the post of Teacher (Panchayat), died in harness; thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment and his claim was rejected by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the circular which was in existence during the year 2016-17 was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 28.06.2017. 7. Initially, a circular was issued by the respondent department for grant of compassionate appointment on 07.02.2014. As per the said circular, a dependent of a deceased teacher could be appointed against a vacant and sanctioned post of Teacher, subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria. Subsequently, Circular dated 08.01.2016 was issued wherein it was provided that, in the absence of the requisite qualification, a dependent of a deceased teacher could be considered for appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat. However, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 28.06.2017 and, at present, there is no policy providing compassionate appointment to dependents of deceased teachers. 4 8. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that, on the date of consideration, Circular dated 08.01.2016 had been withdrawn. Admittedly, on the date of death of the petitioner’s wife, the Policy of 2008 was in force. 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that a claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered with reference to the policy prevailing on the date of death of the deceased employee, therefore, the date of death of the deceased employee would be relevant for consideration of compassionate appointment. 10.The State authorities have not assigned any reason as to why Circular dated 08.01.2016 was subsequently withdrawn, particularly when the application of the petitioner was pending consideration before the authorities. If the petitioner lacked the qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), the respondent department ought to have considered his application for compassionate appointment against any vacant and sanctioned Class-IV post. 11.The reason assigned by respondent No. 2 in the impugned order appears to be unreasonable and arbitrary. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.09.2016 (Annexure P/8) is hereby quashed. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment against any vacant and sanctioned Class-IV post. 12. The authorities are further directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13.In the result, the petition is allowed. 14.No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim