Smt. Deepa Baiga vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 612 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Deepa Baiga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026

                                                                       1




            Digitally signed by
YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI                                                                  2026:CGHC:12780
TIWARI Date: 2026.03.17
       17:41:39 +0530

                                                                                                    NAFR

                                            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                           WPS No. 1642 of 2023

                                  Smt. Deepa Baiga W/o Late Shiv Prasad Baiga Aged About 27 Years
                                  Caste - Baiga, R/o Village Bulaki Tola, P.S. And Tahsil Kelhari, District :
                                  Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                                ... Petitioner
                                                                   versus
                                  1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department,
                                  Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur,
                                  Chhattisgarh
                                  2 - Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Division
                                  Ambikapur District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh
                                  3 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Korea Division Korea
                                  District Manendragarh, Chhattisgarh
                                  4 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department Up Division
                                  Janakpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
                                  5 - Fulmati Baiga W/o Late Vishwanath Baiga Aged About 51 Years R/o
                                  Village Janakpur, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Korea Now District
                                  Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                            ... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy Advocate No.1 to 4 General For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Tanusha Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.03.2026

1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for

following relief(s):-

"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set-aside the impugned order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2, in the interest of justice.

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to strictly direct the respondent authorities to decide/pass an order on the application of the petitioner for appointment on the compassionate basis according to policy of the State Govt. within stipulated time, in the interest of justice.

(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted."

2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the husband of the

petitioner, Late Shiv Prasad Baig, was working as a

Bhritya/Watchman in the department of respondent No. 2 and

unfortunately died in harness on 27.08.2021. After the sudden

demise of the sole breadwinner, the petitioner, being the legally

wedded wife of the deceased, was left in acute financial distress,

as the entire family was dependent upon the income of the

deceased. In order to tide over the financial crisis, the petitioner

applied for appointment on compassionate grounds before the

competent authority through proper channel. Further, the Upper

Collector has issued a successor certificate certifying that the

petitioner is the wife of the deceased and Fulmati is the mother of

the deceased, and that the deceased died in harness. Despite

submission of all requisite documents and repeated

representations, including personal requests made before

respondent No. 3, the claim of the petitioner has not been decided

in accordance with law and has been rejected/kept pending on

untenable grounds, namely non-mention of the petitioner's name

in the service record and absence of consent of the mother of the

deceased. The said action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal

and contrary to law, and the authorities are sitting tight over the

application of the petitioner, causing grave prejudice and financial

hardship.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

order dated 08.06.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 is wholly

illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, and is therefore liable to be

set aside. The action of the respondents in rejecting/keeping

pending the claim of the petitioner is discriminatory and violative

of the settled principles governing compassionate appointment. It

is further submitted that after the sudden demise of her husband,

the petitioner and her family have been facing acute financial

hardship. In accordance with the policy of the State Government

of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner duly applied for compassionate

appointment before the competent authority. The Upper Collector

has also issued a successor certificate certifying that the

petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee and that the

deceased died in harness. Despite fulfillment of all requisite

conditions and submission of necessary documents, the

respondents have failed to consider the claim of the petitioner in

accordance with the applicable rules and circulars, rendering their

action illegal and unsustainable.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner has repeatedly approached the respondent authorities

and has also sent a legal notice through counsel; however, no

action has been taken and no reply has been furnished till date.

The continued inaction on the part of the respondents has caused

serious prejudice and amounts to a continuing legal injury. It is

well settled that the object of compassionate appointment is to

provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased

employee, which stands defeated in the present case due to the

arbitrary conduct of the respondents. It is further submitted that in

a similarly situated matter, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

W.P.S. No. 3668/2021 vide order dated 16.07.2021 has set aside

the rejection order and directed reconsideration of the claim within

a stipulated time. The case of the present petitioner stands on

similar footing, and therefore, the respondents are bound to

reconsider the claim of the petitioner in light of the settled legal

position.

5. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the application for grant of

compassionate appointment has not been considered by the

competent authority on the ground that the name of the petitioner

is not mentioned in the service book of the deceased employee

and that the name of the mother of the deceased, namely Fulmati,

is recorded therein. It is further contended that the application has

also been rejected on the ground that the consent of the mother of

the deceased was not obtained. The said grounds are wholly

untenable and contrary to law, particularly in view of the

successor certificate issued by the competent authority

recognizing the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the

deceased, and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's claim on

such technical grounds is arbitrary and unsustainable.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

State/respondents No.1 to 4 submits that all the allegations

levelled by the petitioner are misconceived and vehemently

denied. It is contended that the present writ petition is devoid of

merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold, as no legal or

fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed so as to

warrant interference by this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted

that the husband of the petitioner, Late Shiv Prasad Baiga, was

working as a Chowkidar and upon his death in harness on

27.08.2021, the name of the nominee recorded in the service

book was that of his mother, Smt. Fulmati Bai, to whom the

admissible financial benefits, including ex-gratia amount and

group insurance, were duly disbursed. It is further submitted that

upon receipt of the petitioner's application for compassionate

appointment, the competent authorities examined the matter and

found several discrepancies, including non-mention of the

petitioner's name in the service record, absence of consent of the

recorded nominee (mother of the deceased), and inconsistencies

in the documents submitted. Accordingly, the petitioner was

informed to rectify the defects. Meanwhile, the mother of the

deceased also applied for compassionate appointment, whose

application was processed and remains under consideration after

due scrutiny and compliance of procedural requirements. It is thus

submits that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance

with the applicable policy and procedure, and there is no illegality

or arbitrariness in the action of the authorities. The claim of the

petitioner has not been rejected arbitrarily but has been dealt with

in accordance with law, and therefore, the present petition, being

devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 adopts the

submissions advanced by learned State counsel and supports the

stand taken by the respondent authorities.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

9. From a perusal of the memo/order dated 08.06.2022 issued by

the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Public Works

Department, Ambikapur Division, it transpires that the application

submitted by the petitioner for grant of compassionate

appointment was examined by the competent authority and

certain discrepancies were noticed. It has been recorded that the

name of the petitioner, Smt. Deepa Baiga, is not mentioned in the

service book of the deceased employee and that the name of the

mother of the deceased, namely Phoolmati, is recorded therein as

nominee. It further transpires that the consent of the mother of the

deceased employee was not furnished along with the application

for compassionate appointment. On account of the aforesaid

deficiencies, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department,

Sub-Division Janakpur, did not accord consent to the case.

10. In view of the above noted discrepancies and absence of requisite

consent, the competent authority returned the case to the

concerned Executive Engineer for necessary compliance and

rectification of the defects. The matter has not been decided on

merits.

11. Upon a thoughtful consideration of the material available on

record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the

petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been

adjudicated in a proper and holistic manner by the competent

authority. The rejection/return of the petitioner's application on

08.06.2022 appears to have been founded on certain technical

discrepancies, namely non-mention of the petitioner's name in the

service book of the deceased employee and absence of consent

of the mother of the deceased. However, it is not in dispute that

the petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife of the

deceased employee and a successor certificate has also been

issued by the competent authority in her favour. In such

circumstances, the claim of the petitioner ought to have been

considered in a more pragmatic and purposive manner, keeping in

view the object of compassionate appointment, which is to provide

immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased

employee who dies in harness.

12. This Court is further of the view that compassionate appointment

being a beneficial scheme, the authorities are required to adopt a

liberal approach while considering such claims, rather than

rejecting them on hyper-technical grounds, particularly when the

financial distress of the family is not in dispute. At the same time,

the requirement of compliance with procedural norms and

submission of requisite documents cannot be dispensed with

altogether. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be

appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the

defects, if any, and to place all relevant documents before the

competent authority for fresh consideration of her claim.

13. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the competent

authority for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim for

compassionate appointment in accordance with law and the

applicable policy of the State Government. The petitioner is

directed to approach the competent authority and file a fresh

representation/application along with all requisite and supporting

documents, including a copy of this order, within a period of 15

days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Upon receipt of such application, the competent authority shall

consider and decide the same afresh by passing a reasoned and

speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a further

period of 60 days thereafter.

14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the competent

authority shall decide the matter independently, uninfluenced by

any observations made herein, except to the extent indicated

above.

15. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition

stands disposed of.

Sd/--

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

Yogesh