Vipin Chourasiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:16891

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JHA JHA Date:2025.04.15 17:19:57 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2480 of 2025

¶7

1 - Vipin Chourasiya S/o Late Tulsiram Chourasiya Aged About 38 Years R/o Lig J/14, Ward No. 32, Dindayal Awas, Housing Board Colony, Near Pani Tanki, Rampur, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector (Food Branch), Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Chhattisgarh Rajya Kaushal Vikas Pradhikaran Bhawan, Second Floor, Old Phq Campus, Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Risabh Bisen, PL For Resp No.3. : Mr. S.S. Choubey on behalf of Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Advocates.

¶16

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board

¶17

11/04/2025

¶18

The Petitioner is the son of Late Tulsiram Chourasiya who was working in the office of Collector, Korba and died in harness on 25/01/2020

¶19

2

¶20

during his service tenure. According to the petitioner, his late father was the employee of the State Road Transport Corporation and after abolition of the said Corporation, his services were placed under the CIDC, who, in turn, sent the deceased employee to the office of the respondent No.2.

¶21

By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 02/11/2023 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the Additional Managing Director, CIDC has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the posts are not lying vacant with the CIDC. He would also submit that similarly situated persons by filing the Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble Court bearing WPS nos. 4272/2020, 1913/2024 and 2617/2024 had challenged their rejection seeking compassionate appointment and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25/11/2024 had directed the Secretary, Water Resource Department to consider the claim of the petitioners afresh and the decision taken by the respondent authorities whereby claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment was rejected on the similar ground as that of the petitioner herein, were quashed.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as for respondent No.3 would submit that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected in absence of vacancy. Learned counsel for CIDC would submit that the CIDC has to follow the guidelines issued by the State Govt. They would

¶24

3

¶25

submit that if in future, a vacancy arises, the claim of the petitioner would be considered.

¶26

I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶27

It is not necessary to post a dependent of a deceased employee on a particular post of his choice, he/she may be offered employment on a Class-IV post. Though there was a Policy in the years 2011 and 2016 to offer a dependent of a deceased employee to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, such dependent may be provided employment in the Class-IV post. Further, the Policy dated 26.10.2023 states that the claim for compassionate appointment would be considered against sanctioned and vacant posts available with the CIDC. It is informed by the Advocates appearing for the CIDC that there are only 9 employees in the department and all are on deputation, meaning thereby, in future, there is no possibility of arising out of any vacancy to consider the claim of the petitioners, therefore, such policy appears to be a farce.

¶28

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the Chief Secretary of the State is directed to look into the grievance & claim of the petitioner afresh. The decision taken by the respondent authorities, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected, is hereby quashed.

¶29

It is expected that the Chief Secretary shall consider and pass necessary order(s) with regard to the claim of the petitioner for compassionate

¶30

4

¶31

appointment, in CIDC or any Municipal Corporation, Municipalities, Board etc. if posts are lying vacant there, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order(s).

¶32

With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), these petitions are disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶35

Rahul

Vipin Chourasiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Chourasiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalavati Patel Vs Gaurishankar Patel

Anil Sharma Vs Shri Remijius Ekka

Bisen Kumar Verma Vs Smt. Alarmalmangai D.

Devendra Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt Sarita Sharma Vs Pramod Joshi

Pramila Lanjhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh