YOGESH D YO ig G it E a S ll H y s T ig IW ne A d R b I y 2026:CGHC:2553 TIWARI Date: 2026.01.16 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3043 of 2023 Girdhar Kumar Verma S/o Late Rangu Ram Verma Aged About 34 Years Working As Peon, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director, Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

15.01.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s) :-

“10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents.

10.2 To kindly direct the respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for granting appointment on Class III post from the date 20/5/2013 with all consequential benefits by modifying the appointment order of the petitioner.

10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working as a Field Worker, Class-IV employee under the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) and his father died in harness on 26.12.2012. As per the compassionate appointment policy, the petitioner submitted an application before Respondent No.3 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner possesses the qualification of Higher Secondary (12th) and Diploma in Computer Application. The compassionate appointment policy, under Clause-12, specifically provides that if a dependent family member of a deceased Class-IV employee fulfills the qualification for a higher post, he shall be entitled to appointment on a Class-III post. At the relevant time, i.e., during the year 2012-13, posts of Assistant Grade-III and Assistant Revenue Inspector were vacant under respondent No.3.

3. Without considering Clause-12 of the policy, the qualifications of the petitioner, and the availability of vacant Class-III posts, respondent No.3 arbitrarily granted appointment to the petitioner on the post of Peon (Class-IV) vide order dated 20.05.2013 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 10.06.2013 before Respondent No.3 seeking reconsideration of his appointment on a Class-III post as per policy. However, the said representation was neither decided nor replied to and was kept pending without assigning any justified reason.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No. 1360/2022, wherein this Court, vide order dated 07.03.2022, directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation within a period of 90 days. In purported compliance of the said order, respondent No.2 rejected the representation in a mechanical manner, without considering the petitioner’s case in a proper and prospective manner and in blatant disregard of the compassionate appointment policy. As per the policy and instructions governing compassionate appointment, the respondent employer was duty-bound to inform the dependent family member regarding availability of suitable posts in accordance with the qualification of the applicant. However, no such information was ever provided to the petitioner, and in an arbitrary manner, he was appointed to a Class-IV post despite availability of Class-III posts.

5. Respondent No.3 has extended the