1 2026:CGHC:11597 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10739 of 2019 1 - Rajani Dewangan D/o Late Mem Bai Dewangan, Aged About 32 Years R/o Kosthapara Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, 4 - The District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, 5 - Block Education Officer, Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Miss Vidhi Matlani appears on behalf of Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Amit Buxy, Deputy GA. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.03.11 19:03:33 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 11/03/2026 1. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 27.5.2019 by which her application seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected holding that as per the circular dated 14.6.2013 (clause-6), in the event of death of the government servant who is not married, compassionate appointment would be granted to brother/sister of the deceased government employee on the recommendation of mother/father. 2. One Mem Bai Dewangan, who was working as Peon in the Government Primary School, Telikot, Khariya, District Raigarh, died in harness on 22.3.2017 and the petitioner is the nominee of the said deceased employee. After the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner moved an application for grant of succession certificate before the Additional Collector, Raigarh. Accordingly, succession certificate was issued by the Additional Collector declaring her to be the nominee of the deceased employee for the purpose of claiming government dues and other benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities were not justified in rejecting the application for grant of compassionate appointment and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned order. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. The claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected in the light of circular dated 14.6.2013 (Clause-6). For the sake of brevity, clause-6 of the said circular is reproduced hereunder:- “6. अात शासकीय सेक का  ध ो े पर अ ुकपा  यु - ऐसे शासकीय सेक की मृयु ो े पर, जो अात े ( अथा दुर े और उसके कोई पु / पुी ! ै) तो ऐसे दंगत शासकीय सेक के ( माता / पता की अ ुशंसा पर) भाई / अात ब को अ ुकपा  यु की पाता ोगी।" 7. Admittedly, the deceased Government employee was unmarried and, therefore, her brother/sister would entitled for compassionate appointment. The petitioner is claiming herself to be the adopted daughter of the deceased Government servant. There is no document on record demonstrating that the petitioner is the adopted daughter of the deceased government servant and the certificate has been issued by the Additional Collector on the basis of service record of the deceased government servant in which the petitioner stood as nominee. 8. In that view of the matter, further taking into consideration clause-6 of the circular dated 14.6.2013 and the fact that since the petitioner is neither brother/sister of the deceased Government servant and the order of the Additional Collector is only for the purpose of collecting Government dues, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 4 application preferred by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected. 9. I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve