1 2026:CGHC:16042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8845 of 2023 1 - Smt. Malika Markam W/o Late Shri Sheet Kumar Markam Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Mahmalla, Post And Thana- Dugli, Tahsil- Nagari,, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Inspector General Of Police Baster Range, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Dantewada, District- South Baster, Dantewada, C.G, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri Kailash Kumar Markam S/o Shri Sukalu Ram Markam Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Devdongar, Post- Samtara , Thana- Narharpur, District- North Baster, Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Caust-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 08/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue direction to the respondent authority to consider and decide claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment of the petitioner within stipulated period. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue direction to the respondent authority to consider and decide pending application of the petitioner dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure P-5), within stipulated period. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash application for compassionate appointment filed by respondent No.-5 (Annexure P-3).” 2. The facts of the present case, as emerging from the pleadings and documents placed on record, are that the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by certain actions of the respondents which, according to her, are illegal, arbitrary, and violative of her lawful rights. It is stated that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife and legal representative of Late Shri Sheet Kumar Markam, who was serving as a Constable (No. 535) and was posted in District South Bastar, Dantewada. During the course of his service, he unfortunately died in harness on 28.11.2021. After his demise, the petitioner, being his widow, 3 claims to be entitled to all consequential service benefits, including consideration for compassionate appointment. The petitioner submits that her marriage with the deceased employee was solemnized on 12.06.2015 and the same subsisted till the death of her husband, there being no decree of divorce or separation passed by any competent court. It is her case that, despite being the legally wedded wife, she was neither informed nor consulted when respondent No. 5 initiated steps to secure compassionate appointment in place of the deceased employee. It is further averred that respondent No. 5, who is the brother of the deceased employee, submitted an application before respondent No. 4 seeking compassionate appointment, without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that respondent No. 5, despite being fully aware of her status as the widow of the deceased, deliberately concealed this material fact and proceeded to obtain a legal heir certificate from the competent authority on 14.11.2022 by suppressing the petitioner’s existence. According to the petitioner, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to her before issuance of the said heir certificate, rendering the same illegal and void in the eyes of law. She contends that such conduct on the part of respondent No. 5 is not only fraudulent but also contrary to established legal procedure. Subsequently, after obtaining the heir certificate, respondent No. 5 again applied for compassionate 4 appointment before respondent No. 4. During the course of scrutiny, respondent No. 4 conducted an inquiry and found that the petitioner’s name was duly recorded in the service book of the deceased employee as his wife. In view of this discrepancy, respondent No. 4 issued a notice dated 16.05.2023 to the petitioner seeking clarification regarding the matter. The petitioner submits that it was only upon receipt of the said notice that she came to know, for the first time, about the application submitted by respondent No. 5 for compassionate appointment. Immediately thereafter, on 24.05.2023, she submitted her own application for grant of compassionate appointment along with an affidavi. It is further stated that the petitioner, in order to ascertain the details of the application submitted by respondent No. 5, filed an application under the Right to Information Act before respondent No. 4 and obtained relevant documents submitted by respondent No. 5 in support of his claim. Thereafter, respondent No. 4, vide letter dated 30.05.2023, directed the petitioner to furnish a valid heir certificate along with a consent letter. The petitioner has challenged this requirement as being unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has also clarified that although there were certain disputes between her and her husband during his lifetime, and some informal proceedings were initiated by members of the community, the same did not culminate in any legal separation or divorce. It is specifically 5 contended that the said proceedings do not bear the signatures of either the petitioner or her husband and, therefore, have no legal sanctity. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, challenging the actions of respondent No. 5 and the consequential steps taken by the authorities, which, according to her, have adversely affected her rightful claim for compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, Late Shri Sheet Kumar Markam, and there exists no decree of divorce or judicial separation between them. It is contended that this position is undisputed and, therefore, the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased employee, has the primary and superior claim for consideration under the scheme of compassionate appointment. However, despite this settled factual position, the brother and other family members of the deceased have surreptitiously moved an application for issuance of a succession certificate, and the same has been obtained in their favour. On the basis of such certificate, the respondent authorities are unjustly denying the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, which has compelled her to approach this Court by way of the present petition. Learned counsel further submits that as per the policy issued by the State Government through the General Administration Department, the first priority for compassionate 6 appointment is to be given to the spouse of the deceased employee. It is argued that the said policy does not mandate obtaining consent from other family members when the legally wedded wife is available and willing to accept the appointment. In view of the said policy, the petitioner is fully entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment in preference to all other claimants. It is also contended that the petitioner has submitted her application for compassionate appointment well within the prescribed time limit and has fulfilled all requisite conditions. Therefore, her application deserves to be considered in a fair, reasonable, and positive manner in accordance with law and the applicable policy. Learned counsel further argues that respondent No. 5 has obtained the heir/succession certificate by suppressing material facts and without disclosing the existence of the petitioner, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. Such conduct, it is submitted, clearly demonstrates that respondent No. 5 has not approached the authorities with clean hands, and therefore, his claim for compassionate appointment is liable to be rejected outright. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a widow with no independent source of income and is facing severe financial hardship after the untimely death of her husband. It is emphasized that she has not received any financial assistance or service benefits from the department till date, making her survival extremely difficult. In such 7 circumstances, compassionate appointment, which is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family, ought to be granted to the petitioner without further delay. 4. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits at the outset that the present petition is devoid of merit, misconceived, and liable to be dismissed. It is contended that although the petitioner claims herself to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, Late Shri Sheet Kumar Markam, the factual position is otherwise. Learned State counsel submits that during the lifetime of the deceased employee, a customary divorce had taken place between the petitioner and the deceased, which was recognized socially, and pursuant thereto, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the service records of the deceased employee as a member of his family. In view of such customary divorce, it is argued that the petitioner ceased to be a dependent family member of the deceased employee and, therefore, is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. Learned State counsel further submits that after the death of the employee, respondent No. 5, who is the brother of the deceased, applied for compassionate appointment and also obtained a succession certificate from the competent authority in his favour. It is argued that the issuance of the succession certificate in favour of respondent No. 5 establishes his status as a legal heir of the 8 deceased employee, and consequently, the petitioner cannot claim any preferential right over the said benefit. It is further submitted that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but is governed strictly by the policy framed by the State Government. The object of such appointment is only to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis caused due to the death of the breadwinner. It is emphasized that such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of inheritance or entitlement dehors the policy. Learned State counsel also submits that both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 had submitted applications for compassionate appointment before the competent authority. However, in view of the dispute regarding the legal heirship of the deceased employee, the competent authority, vide order dated 30.05.2023, has rightly directed the petitioner to produce a valid succession certificate along with consent from the mother of the deceased employee. In absence of such documents, the claim of the petitioner cannot be processed further. It is further contended that the respondent authorities have acted strictly in accordance with law and the applicable compassionate appointment policy. There is neither any illegality nor arbitrariness in the action of the respondents. On the contrary, in view of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 regarding legal heirship, the petitioner has rightly been advised to approach the competent civil 9 court for determination of her status and for obtaining an appropriate succession certificate. In conclusion, learned State counsel submits that since the petitioner has already been divorced from the deceased employee during his lifetime as per customary practice, her name stood deleted from the service records, and further, the succession certificate has been issued in favour of the brother of the deceased, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Hence, the present writ petition, being premature and lacking merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the core dispute in the present case revolves around the entitlement of the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment on account of the death of her husband, Late Shri Sheet Kumar Markam, who died in harness while serving as Constable. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner claims herself to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and has staked her claim for compassionate appointment on that basis. It is also borne out from the record that respondent No. 5, who is the brother of the deceased employee, has not only applied for compassionate appointment but has also obtained a succession certificate from the competent civil court in his favour. The said succession certificate, as it stands, recognizes respondent No. 5 as a legal heir of the deceased employee. 10 7. Be that as it may, once a succession certificate has been issued by a competent court of civil jurisdiction in favour of respondent No. 5, the same holds the field and carries legal sanctity unless it is set aside or modified by a court of competent jurisdiction. Such a certificate cannot be ignored or bypassed by the authorities while dealing with claims relating to service benefits, including compassionate appointment. In absence of any challenge to the said succession certificate, this Court cannot undertake an adjudication which would have the effect of nullifying or rendering otiose the said certificate. 8. Further, from the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and the documents on record, it emerges that during the lifetime of the deceased employee, the petitioner is stated to have been divorced on the basis of customary practices prevailing in the community, and pursuant thereto, her name was deleted from the service records of the deceased employee as a family member. Though the petitioner disputes the same, such disputed questions of fact, coupled with the existence of a succession certificate in favour of respondent No. 5, cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present writ jurisdiction. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the proper course available to the petitioner is to first assail the succession certificate granted in favour of respondent No. 5 before the competent civil court in accordance with law. Unless and until the 11 said succession certificate is set aside or appropriate declaration regarding legal heirship is obtained, no direction can be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in preference to respondent No. 5. At this stage, when the succession certificate stands in favour of another family member, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained or granted by overlooking the said certificate. The respondent authorities, therefore, cannot be faulted for requiring the petitioner to produce a valid succession certificate or appropriate proof of her status as legal heir before considering her claim. ] 10. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present petition is premature and the reliefs as sought cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the competent court/authority for challenging the succession certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 5 and to seek appropriate declaration of her status in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE