1 2026:CGHC:15753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1048 of 2022 1 - Gitesh Bharti S/o Late Niranjan Bharti Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Udiyapal Post Korta Tah. Bakawand (C.G.) Distt. Bastar C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate alongwith Shri G.P. Mathur, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri T.L. Bareth, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07 .04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P-1 and direct the respondent authority to consider and grant compassionate appointment as per judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.S. No. 6828/2021 within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. NIRMALA RAO 2 (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner, who was working on the post of Hand Pump Technician in the Public Health Engineering Department died in harness on 25.11.2017. The petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 26.2.2018 and same has been rejected vide order dated 30.12.2019 on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is already in government service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner died on 25.11.2017 and at that point of time, the mother of the petitioner was posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. He would contend that in the matter of Smt. Sweta Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. in WP(S) No.6828 of 2021, decided on 28.1.2022, it has been held that Shiksha Karmis are not holders of a civil post under the State and therefore, they are not government servants and on that basis, compassionate appointment cannot be denied. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the services of the Shiksha Karmis were absorbed into the School Education Department according to policy decision dated 1.7.2018 and thereafter, all the Shiksha Karmis were treated as Government Servants. He would submit that the decision on the petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment was taken after the absorption of services of mother of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the decision has been taken in accordance with Clause 6A of the 3 Policy for compassionate appointment. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. In the matter of Smt. Sweta Singh (supra), the petitioner therein was appointed as Assistant Grade-III on compassionate grounds; however, the said appointment was subsequently withdrawn by the respondent authorities on the ground that her husband and her husband's brother both were Shiksha Karmis, became government servants by virtue of absorption of their services in the government department. It was held that the relatives of the said petitioner were Shiksha Karmis and were not in government service as on the date of death and therefore, they cannot be treated as government servants. Consequently, the compassionate appointment cannot be withdrawn on that basis. The relevant para 14 is reproduced herein below: “14. Since on the date of death of the petitioner's father-in- law Manmohan Singh Pawar and immediately thereafter no family member of the petitioner was in Government service and both the relatives were Shiksha Karmis and not in Government service as on that date, the petitioner's appointment on 2.6.2021 (Annexure P13) could not have been interdicted on the ground that subsequently the petitioner's husband and her husband's brother both have become Government servant and in Government service by virtue of absorption in Government Department and policy applicable bars compassionate appointment on that ground.” 7. In the present case, the application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the 4 mother of the petitioner was a Shiksha Karmi, whose services were absorbed. 8. Taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Smt. Sweta Singh (supra) as well as the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi