1 2026:CGHC:17232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 300 of 2020 1 - Mangal Prasad Kaushal S/o Shyamlal Kaushal Aged About 69 Years R/o Village And Post Patora, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Health Welfare Department Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balod District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Health Services, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Balod District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer Community Health Centre, Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 6 - The Medical Officer Primary Health Centre, Sirsida, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Tanuja W/o Late Shri Yugal Kishore Kaushal Aged About 30 Years D/o Shri Rekhram Sonwani, R/o. Village And Post Kashi, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate on behalf of Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 6/State : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, PL For respondent No.7 : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board 15/04/2026 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking appropriate directions against respondent No.7 in respect of the conditions attached to her compassionate appointment. 2. The undisputed facts, in brief is that respondent No.7 was granted compassionate appointment vide order dated 01.03.2014 upon the death of Late Shri Yugal Kishore Kaushal. As per the condition stipulated in para 7 of the said appointment order, she was under the obligation to maintain the dependent family members of the deceased employee. The petitioner, being father-in-law of respondent No.7, along with his wife, claims to be dependent upon the deceased employee. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite obtaining compassionate appointment, respondent No.7 failed to maintain the petitioner and his 3 wife, thereby violating the conditions of the appointment. The petitioner submitted a representation before the competent authorities but the respondent authorities vide communication dated 14.11.2019 declined to take any action against the respondent NO.7, primarily on the ground that she has a right to remarry. 3. The petitioner has sought issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to take action against respondent No.7 for violation of the conditions contained in paragraph 7 of the appointment order dated 01.03.2014 and to ensure compliance with the obligation to maintain the dependent family members of the deceased employee. 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities have erred in not considering the violation of the essential conditions of compassionate appointment ie. maintenance of the dependent family members by the respondent No.7. It is contended that merely because the respondent No.7 has remarried, the same cannot absolve her from the obligation under the appointment order. 5. However, on the last date of hearing ie. on 01.04.2026, learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have now amicably resolved the dispute and have entered into compromise. It is submitted that the respondent No.7 has agreed to take care of the petitioner in terms of the condition of compassionate appointment. 6. Today, the petitioner and respondent No.7 are present before this Court and they have categorically stated that the compromise has been 4 entered into voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence. Respondent No.7 is ready to take care of the petitioner in lieu of compassionate appointment granted to her because in the compassionate appointment itself there is a condition to take care of the petitioner as she was dependent upon the deceased employee. 7. This Court has perused the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties. The same indicates that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It reads as under: “1- ;g fd izFke i{kdkj] f}rh; i{kdkjx.kksa dks vkthou Hkj.k&iks”k.k ds en esa lkl ds fy, 5000@& ¼v{kjh ikap gtkj #-½ ,oa llqj ds fy, 5000 @& ¼v{kjh ikap gtkj #-½ bl izdkj tqeyk 10]000@& #i;s ¼v{kjh nl gtkj #-½ f}rh; i{kdkjx.kksa ds la;qDr cSad [kkrk Nrrhlx< xzkeh.k cSad ‘kk[kk mrbZ ds dzekad &77062268386 esa izR;sd ekg izFke i{kdkj ds foHkkx ds ek/;e ls osru dVkSrh fd;k tkdj varfjr fd;k tkosxkA 2- ;g fd] izFke i{kdkj ;qxy fd’kksj dkS’ky dh e`R;q ds mijkar ;qxy fd’kksj ds LFkku ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr izkIr dj fpfdRlk foHkkx ds eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLFk; vf/kdkjh ckyksn ds v/khuLFk izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz fljflnk fodkl[k.M xq.Mjnsgh ftyk ckyksn esa vk;k ds in ij inLFk gSA f}rh; i{kdkjx.k dks Hkj.k&iks”k.k ds en esa vnk dh tkus okyh jkf’k izFke i{kdkj ds foHkkx ds ek/;e ls f}rh; i{kdkjx.k ds mDr [kkrs esa varfjr dh tkosxh ftl ij izFke i{kdkj dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxhA 3- ;g fd f}rh; i{kdjx.k ,oa izFke i{kdkj mDr jkthukek ls iw.kZ #i ls lger gSA Hkfo”; esa f}rh; i{kdkjx.k] izFke i{kdkj ds fo#) dksbZ U;k;ky;hu dk;Zokgh ugha djsaxsA mDr jkthukek fcuk fdlh Hk; ,oa izyksHku ds LoLFkfpr esa fu”ikfnr fd;k tk jgk gSA mDr jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij jkthuke ds vk’k; dk vafre fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkosA” 8. In view of the statements made by the parties and considering that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed in terms of the 5 compromise, no further adjudication on merits is required. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The terms of the compromise shall form part of this order and shall be binding upon the parties. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.20 10:42:35 +0530