SMT. ANJANA SAHU vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010372102022 2026:CGHC:39048
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8487 of 2022
 Smt. Anjana Sahu D/o Late Shri Sudarshan Sao, W/o Shri
Nawratan Sahu Aged About 27 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o
Village Palsapali, Post Amarkot, Thana And Tahsil Saraipali,
District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And
Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan,
Capital Complex Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2. Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pithaura, District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. Sunil Sahu, Adv.
For Respondents
No. 1 and 2
: Mr, Vivek Mishra, Adv.
For Respondents
No. 3 and 4
: Ms. Priyanka Rai Mishra, Adv.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board

2
03.09.2026
1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ by
quashing the impugned order dated
10.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
respondent No. 3.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondents to consider
and decide the petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment as per policy
applicable and law laid down by this Hon'ble
court.
10.3 That any other /relief order that may be
deemed fit and just in the facts and
circumstances of the case including awarding
of the cost of the petition may kindly be
passed.
2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner’s father namely
Sudarshan Sao, who was working on the post of Secretary at
Gram Panchayat Palsapani, Janpad Panchayat Pithaura died in
harness on 07.03.2022. Petitioner, who is the elder daughter of
deceased employee moved application for grant of
compassionate appointment according to policy dated 27.02.2015
but the said application was rejected by Chief Executive Officer
Jila Panchayat, Mahasamund vide order dated 10.06.2022 on the
ground that son of the deceased employee is already in
government service.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father
died in harness in year 2015 and the respondent No. 3 has
rejected the claim of petitioner relying on Clause 6(a) of policy

3
dated 14.06.2013. He further submits that said policy is applicable
on the employees of State Government whereas the case of
petitioner is governed by a separate policy of Panchayat and
Rural Development Department dated 27.02.2015 which relates to
grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of
deceased Gram Panchayat Secretaries. He contends that the
authority concerned has erroneously applied the policy dated
14.03.2013 while rejecting the claim of petitioner whereas such
condition was not part of policy dated 27.02.2015 and it only
inserted subsequently on 03.09.2024. He prays for a direction to
respondent No. 3 to re-consider the claim of petitioner strictly in
light of policy dated 27.02.2015.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
No. 3 and 4 submits that one of the family members of deceased
employee was a government servant therefore claim of petitioner
was rightly turned down by respondent No. 3. She further submits
that this petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6) A careful perusal of order dated 10.06.2022 would reveal that the
authority concerned has rejected the claim of petitioner relying on
Clause 6(a) of policy dated 14.06.2013 whereas a specific policy
dated 27.02.2015 exists for grant of compassionate appointment
to the dependents of deceased Secretaries of Gram Panchayats.

4
Therefore, in my opinion, action of the part of respondent No. 3
whereby policy dated 14.06.2013 has been relied appears to be
bad in law. Furthermore, the policy dated 27.02.2015 did not
contain any condition denying compassionate appointment to a
dependent on the ground that a family member is in government
service and such condition was only inserted subsequently on
03.09.2024.
7) It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for
compassionate appointment are to be considered strictly in
accordance with the prevailing policy. Thus, in the present case,
respondent No. 3 was under obligation to consider the claim of
petitioner in light of policy dated 27.02.2015.
8) Accordingly, the order dated 10.06.2022 is hereby quashed.
Respondent No. 3 is directed to re-consider and decide the claim
of petitioner strictly in accordance with the policy dated
27.02.2015 by way of a speaking order, preferably within a period
of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9) In result, this writ petition is allowed .
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y A
Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.09.07
10:29:19 +0530