##PAGE1##

1

Digitally signed by RAME SH 2026:CGHC:17775 KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.21

14:05:23 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 8491 of 2018 * - Gausiya Parveen W/o Late Manzoor Ahmad Aged About 35 Years R/o Opp. Amin Kiraya Store Near Bajrang Mandir, Sanjay Nagar, District : Raipur,

Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, GAD, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Through Deputy Secretary And Public Information Officer, Zero Point Baloda Market Road, Raipur, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Shashi Kalakar @ Shanaz Parveen W/o Late Manzoor Ahmad Aged About 48 Years R/o Opp. Amin Kiraya Store, Store Near Bajrang Mandir, Sanjay

Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Ms. Swati Rani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Devershi Thakur,

Advocate

For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate

For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Pragya Vaishnaw, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Prateek

Sharma, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

20/04/2026

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

“10.1 That, petitioner most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and Quash the impugned Instruction order dated 29.08.2016

2

and 12.01.2017 and declare the same ineffective against the petitioner.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to

appointment the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

10.3 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly

be granted also.

10.4 Cost of the case may also be granted.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of late

Manzoor Ahmad who was driver in the Department of Chhattigarh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat. He died in harness on 23.08.2017. The petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 04.09.2017 and said application has been rejected vide order dated 05.12.2017 on the ground that second wife of the government servant namely Smt. Shanaaz Parveen is already in the

government service.

3. Mr. Swati Rani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that Smt. Shanaaz Parveen is residing separately and she never supported the petitioner financially. She would contend that the petitioner being legally wedded wife is entitled for compassionate appointment according to policy for compassionate appointment. It is also contended that no inquiry was conducted to determine the

financial status of the petitioner. She would pray to allow this petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective

respondents would oppose. They would submit that as per Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, if any family member of the deceased government servant is already employed in government

3

service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. He has relied on the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically held that the policy does not envisage any inquiry into the financial condition of other family members, and eligibility is to be strictly decided as per the terms of the

policy.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents placed in the instant petition.

6. In the matter of Muniya Bai (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench, while

interpreting Clause 6A of the policy governing compassionate appointments, has clearly held that if any member of the family of a deceased government servant is already in government service, no other member of the family is eligible for a compas