Digitally

2025:CGHC:55941 signed by SHAYNA NAFR KADRI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 857 of 2023

1 - Kamla Baghel Wd/o Late Sudharshan Baghel Aged About 61 Years R/o Dnk Para, Kondagaon, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Work Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Chief Engineer, Public Work Department, Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

3 - Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

4 - Collector, Kondagaon , District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

17/11/2025

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :

“10.1 This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 16/11/22 (Annexure P-4) in interest of justice.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the present petitioner by regularizing her service as daily wage employee or kindly direct the respondents to decide the petitioner representation within such outer limit as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and for the proper adjudication of the case

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

10.5 This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to grant the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the husband of petitioner, Late Sudarshan Baghel, was working as Assistant Grade-III in the office of respondent no. 2 when he died in harness on 12^th April 2002. Following his death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 2^nd June 2004, in the prescribed format, seeking a job as per the applicable provisions. The respondents communicated to the petitioner through letters dated 9^th June 2004 and 6^th June 2006 that her application for a peon’s post was tenable; however, due to the unavailability of vacant posts, her application could not be processed at that time. It was assured that her application would be considered once vacancies arose. Since no vacancies were available, the respondents allowed the petitioner to work as a daily wage security guard starting from 11^th July 2008, with the understanding that she would be given permanent employment once a vacancy arose. To date, the petitioner continues to work in this capacity. Despite her continuous efforts and representations to the respondent authorities, her request for compassionate appointment has not been addressed, even though the respondent no. 4’s office repeatedly requested the concerned respondents to consider the petitioner’s case sympathetically. The petitioner then filed WPS No. 4330/22 before this Court, seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment by regularizing her service as a daily wage employee. The Court, by order dated 24^th June 2022, directed respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation and take a decision within 60 days. However, despite this order, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on 16^th November 2022, citing the reason that the petitioner had failed to apply within three years of her husband’s death. This is factually incorrect, as the petitioner had submitted her application well within the time frame, as evidenced by the letters dated 9^th June 2004 and 6^th June 2006, which assured her that the application would be