1 2026:CGHC:8700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2286 of 2020 1 - Smt. Vimla Bai Chouhan W/o Vimal Kumar Chouhan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post-Kotba, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - The Director Directorate Of Health Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri K.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal , J Order On Board 18/02/2026 1. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 29.1.2020 (Annexure-P/1) by which her application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that husband of the petitioner was working as a contractual employee. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.02.19 13:34:31 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities were not justified in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and as such, the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) may be set-aside/quashed. 3. Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the return filed by the respondent/State, circular dated 14.6.2013 has been annexed as Annexure-R/1. Clause-17 of the said circular clearly provides that the dependants of the daily wager and contractual employees will not be entitled for compassionate appointment. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. However, taking note of the fact that husband of the petitioner has already completed 5 years of service, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1 lakh, as provided in proviso to Clause-17. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve