NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI WPS No. 4285 of 2022 Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI

1 - Arjun Patre S/o Lt. Dhaneshwar Patre Aged About 33 Years R/o Pragati Nagar, Pandri, Date: 2025.12.01 16:54:04 +0530 Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Ayurveda Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Purana Mantralaya Parisar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Dean Government Ayurveda University Hospital, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate appeared through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order On Board

27.11.2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the communication dated 01.01.2020 (Annexure P/1), whereby he was informed by respondent No. 2 that under the relevant circular of the State Government, no exemption from the prescribed eligibility criteria is permissible in cases relating to compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased government employees.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father, late Shri Dhaneshwar Patre, was working as a Cleaner under the respondents and died in harness on 15.05.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother, being illiterate/uneducated, submitted an application to the respondents (Annexure P/2), requesting that her son (the petitioner) be granted compassionate appointment in her place. The said application was returned to her vide communication dated 19.06.2015 (Annexure P/3), stating that the minimum qualification for appointment to a Class-IV post is passing Class 8th, and since the petitioner did not possess the said qualification at the relevant time, he was ineligible for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, the petitioner passed the Class 8th examination and thereafter submitted an application (Annexure P/5) to the respondents, stating that he had obtained the requisite minimum qualification and requesting that his claim for compassionate appointment be considered. It appears from the record that this application was never expressly rejected by the respondents; instead, the petitioner was informed through Annexure P/1 that no exemption from the minimum qualification requirement could be granted for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that as per the compassionate appointment policy of the State Government, the period for consideration of such cases is three years under normal circumstances and five years under special circumstances. The petitioner obtained the minimum qualification within one to two years from the date of his father’s death, and therefore, his application ought to have been considered and granted. Accordingly, a direction is sought to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s mother had submitted a representation seeking extension of time for the petitioner to obtain the minimum qualification, which was duly rejected by the respondents, and appropriate communication in this regard was issued. Hence, no illegality or irregularity can be attributed to the respondents.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father was serving as a Cleaner under the respondents and died in harness on 15.05.2015. It is also a settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate grounds must be strictly governed by the policy framed by the Government. The relevant policy, placed on record as Annexure P/8, contains Clause 16, which prescribes the time limit for consi