State Of Chhattisgarh vs Smt. Neeta Thakur
2026 Latest Caselaw 24 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Smt. Neeta Thakur on 25 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                             1




                                                                     2026:CGHC:9792-DB
                                                                                           NAFR

          Digitally
          signed by
          BABLU
                                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU     RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA  BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
          2026.02.26
          10:25:27
          +0530


                                                  WA No. 184 of 2026

                       1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashan Awam
                       Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, District Raipur
                       (C.G.)(Respondent)

2 - The Director, Nagariya Prashan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)(Respondent) ... Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Neeta Thakur W/o Shri Manharan Lal Thakur Aged About 46 Years Working In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, (C.G.)(Petitioner) 2 - The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent : Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate No.1 For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Advocate No.2

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.02.2026

1. Heard Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the appellants as well as Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha,

learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned

counsel for respondent No.2 on I.A.No.01/2026, which is an

application for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the present

appeal.

2. On due consideration, I.A.No.01/2026 is allowed. Delay of 17 days

in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is

heard finally.

4. The appellants/State have filed this writ appeal against the order

dated 10.12.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.

11237/2025 by which learned Single Judge has allowed the writ

petition filed by respondent No.1 herein.

5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that respondent

No.1's father Late Nanuk Lal Thakur was working under the

respondent No. 2 and he expired on 12.01.2014 during his service

period. Thereafter, respondent No.1 submitted an application for

grant of compassionate appointment under the respondent No. 2

as per the rules and circular of the State Government. Respondent

No.1 was appointed on the post of Peon on 10.01.2025 on

compassionate ground as her father was an employee of

respondent No. 2. Respondent No.1 joined her services and was

subsequently discharging her duties. Respondent No. 2 on

11.09.2025 issued an order cancelling the compassionate

appointment of respondent No.1 stating that a proposal was sent

to the Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and

Development for Ex-Post facto approval of compassionate

appointment made to respondent No.1 to the post of Peon as per

the provisions of the Unified Revised Guidelines, 2013. But, since,

Ex-post facto approval has not been received from the Directorate

of Urban Administration and Development, the appointment order

of respondent No.1 dated 10.01.2025 is hereby cancelled.

6. Being aggrieved by the said termination order, respondent No.1

preferred the writ petition before learned Single Judge and the

learned Single Judge by the impugned order set aside the

termination order relating to respondent No.1 and further directed

that respondent No.1 be reinstated on the post of Peon. It was

further held that the seniority of respondent No.1 shall be reckoned

from the initial date of their appointment without any break in

service. Hence, this writ appeal.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

appellants/State submits that the impugned order dated

10.12.2025 is illegal and arbitrary in nature, and therefore, it is not

sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the said order

deserves to be set aside by this Court. Before passing the

impugned order, learned Single Judge failed to consider Clause 16

of the Unified Revised Guidelines, 2013, which pertains to

compassionate appointments. Clause 16 specifically mandates

that the time limit for considering and granting appointments on

compassionate grounds to applicants is 3 years, and in

exceptional circumstances, this period may be extended to 5

years, subject to the prior approval of the General Administration

Department. This important provision was not considered by

learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. He further

submits that learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that

respondent No. 1 had been granted a compassionate appointment

by the concerned Municipal Corporation, subject to the approval of

the General Administration Department. However, due to the non-

receipt of the post-work sanction from the General Administration

Department, the appointment order of Respondent No. 1 was set

aside. This was a relevant factor that ought to have been taken

into account while deciding the present matter. He also submits

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of H.P. Vs. Shashi

Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, has held that the purpose of

compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a deceased

employee to overcome an immediate financial crisis caused by the

death of the employee. In this context, any unreasonable delay in

the process should, in the ordinary course, lead to the rejection of

the application and the writ petition, as it defeats the very purpose

of compassionate appointments. He contended that in the matter

of Tinku Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that a compassionate appointment is not a vested

right, nor is it a condition of service. It is provided to help a family

in immediate financial distress caused by the untimely death of the

breadwinner. The appointment is subject to strict scrutiny based on

various criteria laid down in the applicable rules and policies.

Compassionate appointments are not granted without proper

verification and adherence to laid-down procedures. In the present

case, the appellants have not been granted an opportunity to file a

reply in response to the petition. This omission has resulted in the

inability of the State to properly present its case before learned

Single Bench, thus impacting the fairness and completeness of the

proceedings. He further contended that the appellants, as well as

the respondents, are duty-bound to adhere to the policy that has

been formulated regarding compassionate appointments. It is

submitted that any decision that deviates from the established

policy would be arbitrary and unjust. In light of the above

submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is

submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge is liable

to be set aside, in the interest of justice.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes

the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the appellants/State and submits that learned Single

Judge considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed

the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1

herein, which warrants no interference by this Court.

9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused

the impugned order and other documents appended with writ

appeal.

10. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by

respondent No.1 has observed as under:-

"5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the bunch of these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is not disputed by counsel for the respondents.

6. Accordingly, all the impugned orders so far as it relates to the petitioners are quashed. The petitioners are directed to be reinstated on the post of Peon. It is clarified that the petitioners are not entitled to get back wages, however, their seniority shall be reckoned from the initial date of their appointment without any break in service.

7. Accordingly, all the bunch of these writ petitions are allowed in terms of order dated 18-11-2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 12389 of 2025 in case of Jaichand Sarthi (supra)."

11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as

also with writ appeal and also considering the observation made by

learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by

respondent No.1, we are of the considered view that learned

Single Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the

impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

12.Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

                   Sd/-                                         Sd/-

        (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                          (Ramesh Sinha)
                  Judge                                    Chief Justice




Bablu