Disposed¶27

Smt. Vimla Bai Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Feb 2026WPS/2286/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment Chhattisgarh; rejection of claim where deceased/dependent relation was contractual employee; Clause-17 circular dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure-R/1) excluding dependants of daily wager and contractual employees; proviso to Clause-17 monetary benefit of Rs.1 lakh on completion of five years of service; direction to CMHO Jashpur to pay within 45 days; Health and Family Welfare Department; Directorate of Health Services Raipur; WPS No. 2286 of 2020; decided 18/02/2026 by Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 (Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jashpur) directed to pay Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner under the proviso to Clause-17 of the circular dated 14.6.2013, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; with this direction/observation the writ petition is disposed of. ¶27

Smt. Vimla Bai Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband was working as a contractual employee. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Under Clause-17 of the circular dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure-R/1), dependants of daily wager and contractual employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment; therefore, the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Taking note that the petitioner's husband has already completed five years of service, the petitioner is held entitled to Rs.1 lakh as provided in the proviso to Clause-17, and respondent No.3 is directed to pay that amount within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPS No. 2286 of 2020, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.; order dated 18/02/2026): Petitioner challenged the order dated 29.1.2020 (Annexure-P/1) rejecting her application for compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband was working as a contractual employee. Relying on Clause-17 of the circular dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure-R/1) filed with the State's return, which provides that dependants of daily wager and contractual employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment, the Court held the respondent authorities justified in rejecting the claim. However, noting that the petitioner's husband had already completed five years of service, the Court held the petitioner entitled to Rs.1 lakh under the proviso to Clause-17 and directed respondent No.3 (Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Jashpur) to pay the amount within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

2026:CGHC:8700

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2286 of 2020

¶6

1 - Smt. Vimla Bai Chouhan W/o Vimal Kumar Chouhan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post-Kotba, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶10

2 - The Director Directorate Of Health Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶11

3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Shri K.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

18/02/2026

¶17

The petitioner has questioned the order dated 29.1.2020 (Annexure-P/1)

¶18

by which her application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that husband of the petitioner was working

¶19

as a contractual employee.

¶20

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2026.02.19 13:34:31 +0530

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities were not justified in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and as such, the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) may be set-aside/quashed.

¶23

Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned order.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶25

In the return filed by the respondent/State, circular dated 14.6.2013 has been annexed as Annexure-R/1. Clause-17 of the said circular clearly provides that the dependants of the daily wager and contractual employees will not be entitled for compassionate appointment.

¶26

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. However, taking note of the fact that husband of the petitioner has already completed 5 years of service, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1 lakh, as provided in proviso to Clause-17. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶28

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶29

Barve

Smt. Vimla Bai Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vimla Bai Chouhan 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hriday Lal Vs South Eastern Coal Field Limited

Sandeep Mehar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kamini Devi Purena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Subhadra Sangam Vs State of Chhattisgarh