Ankit Singh Paikara Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Ankit Singh Paikara Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: impugned order (Annexure A/1) dated 18/09/2017 set aside; matter remitted to respondent No. 3 (District Education Officer, Bilaspur) to decide the petitioner's compassionate-appointment application afresh per the norms prevailing on 12/09/2017 (date of application), within four weeks, by a reasoned and speaking order; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered as per the norms prevailing on the date of filing of the application rather than the norms prevailing on the date of death of the Government servant, and consequently whether the impugned rejection is sustainable.

Court's answer

As held in N.C. Santosh and adopted by this Court, the norms prevailing on the date of the application would be made the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment (not the norms on the date of death of the Government servant).

Ratio / Principle

The rejection of the petitioner's compassionate-appointment claim by respondent No. 3 on the basis of the policy prevailing on the date of death of the Government servant is absolutely unsustainable and bad in law in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in N.C. Santosh.

Key takeaways

The impugned order (Annexure A/1) is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh in terms of the norms prevailing on the date of the application (12/09/2017), to be decided within four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment - applicable norms - date of application v. date of death. Writ petition (Art. 226, Constitution) by Ankit Singh Paikara against rejection of his application for compassionate appointment (order dt. 18/09/2017, Annexure A/1) passed by respondent No. 3, the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, which had applied the policy prevailing on the date of death of the petitioner's father, a Government servant. Relying on N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 617, wherein the Supreme Court held that the norms prevailing on the date of the application form the basis for consideration of such claims, the Court (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) held the rejection absolutely unsustainable and bad in law, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to respondent No. 3 for fresh consideration per the norms prevailing on the date of the application (12/09/2017), to be decided within four weeks by a reasoned and speaking order. Writ petition allowed; no costs.

1

2026:CGHC:15253

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 4996 of 2019

1 - Ankit Singh Paikara S/o Late Pandey Singh Paikara Aged About 20 Years R/o Village / Post Pathiyapali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - The Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - The District Education Officer District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4 - The Block Education Officer Block Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer

2

SB - Hon'ble Shri Just i ce Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

02.04.2026

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 18/09/2017 (Annexure A/1) by which the application moved by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected by respondent No. 3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka and Others 1, petitioner’s

case ought to have been considered by respondent No. 3 as per the norms prevailing on the date of filing of the application and not on the date of death of the Government servant, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submit that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

5. In the matter of N.C. Santosh (supra), it has clearly been held by the Supreme Court that the norms prevailing on the date of the

1 (2020) 7 SCC 617

3

application would be made basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment.

6. In the instant case, while considering the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, policy prevailing on the date of death of the Government servant (petitioner’s father) has been taken into account and accordingly, petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by respondent No. 3, which is absolutely unsustainable and bad in law in view of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of N.C. Santosh (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure A/1) is hereby set aside and matter is remitted to respondent No. 3 to consider petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment afresh in terms of the norms prevailing on the date of the application i.e. 12/09/2017 and decide it within four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Harneet