KU. SHANTI SETHIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010416152026 2026:CGHC:45268
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7692 of 2026
1 - Ku. Shanti Sethiya D/o Shri Jhinu Ram, Aged About 47 Years Mother
Late Sukal Bai, (Dob 03/07/1978), R/o 89, Village Panchayat
Ghatpadamur Para, Bhataguda, Post Office Titirgaon, Dharampura,
Tahsil Jagadalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Pin 494001, Mb. 9406002191
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, The Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.).
Pin 492002
2 - Commissioner's Office Incharge, In The Commissioner Of The
Higher Education Department, Block-3, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
New Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492002
3 - The Principal Of The Government Kaktiya Post Graduate College
Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (Cg) Pin 494001,
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate
For Respondents/ State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
27/10/2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for the
following reliefs :-

2
“10.1. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased
to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's
case.
10.2. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be quashed
the impugned order/letter dated 09/01/2026 Annexure
P/1 and Ann. P/9 impugned order dated 27/07/2026
which is passed by the respondent R/2 the
Commissioner Higher Education.
10.3. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be directed to
the respondent R/2 to comply the circular for
compassionate appointment for the petitioner with the
Letter & Spirit and also motive of the scheme of
compassionate appointment being a single legal
representative of the late employee's unmarried
daughter.
10.4. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed
to the respondent R/2 to pay the all death claims of
the mother of the petitioner, pension and penalty
interest on the total unpaid amount from date of death
dated 29/10/2025.
10.5. Any other relief may also be granted to the
petitioner which this Hon'ble court feels fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the
daughter of the deceased employee, who was working as a Peon
under respondent No. 3. After the death of the deceased
employee, the petitioner's mother was granted compassionate
appointment. However, she subsequently died due to cancer.
Thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment,
but her application was rejected by the respondents on the ground
that she had crossed the prescribed age limit of 45 years, as
stipulated in the policy governing compassionate appointment
dated 14.06.2013. Learned counsel further submits that, in terms
of the Circular dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure P-6), a provision has

3
been made for relaxation of the maximum age limit in the case of
the widow of a deceased employee. It is contended that the
petitioner's case deserves special consideration, as no other
earning member is available in the family and the petitioner is the
only daughter of the deceased employee. Accordingly, learned
counsel prays that the petitioner's case be considered as a
special case, the prescribed age limit be relaxed, and the
impugned order of rejection (Annexure P-9) be quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that Clause 11 of the State
Government Policy dated 14.06.2013 specifically prescribes the
maximum age limit of 45 years for candidates such as the
petitioner, who is the daughter of the deceased employee. It is
undisputed that the petitioner has crossed the prescribed age limit
of 45 years. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting her
application for compassionate appointment is just and proper.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of the
deceased employee and has crossed the prescribed age limit of
45 years. Clause 11 of the State Government Policy dated
14.06.2013 specifically prescribes the maximum age limit of 45
years for candidates seeking compassionate appointment. Since
the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has
been rejected on the ground that she has crossed the prescribed

4
age limit, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the
respondents in passing the impugned order of rejection.
6. As regards the relaxation of the maximum age limit provided to
the widow of a deceased employee under the Circular dated
22.11.2007, the said provision is of no assistance to the petitioner,
as she is the daughter of the deceased employee and the
aforesaid Circular is not applicable to her case.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
SD/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Amardeep