Radhika Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - The Upper Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

(Cause-title t	... Respondents aken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner	: Mr. Harsh Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 and 2/State	: Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. Pritendra Chauhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

02.01.2026

¶16

1. Heard Mr. Harsh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Pritendra Chauhan,

¶17

2

¶18

learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶19

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s) :-

¶20

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the matter of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Honble Court.

¶21

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to allow this writ petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 10.06.2019 and further may kindly be please to direct the respondent authority to appoint the petitioner of compassionate appointment.

¶22

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstance of the cases including award of the cost of the petitioner may be given. ”

¶23

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner’s mother, Late Champa Bai Dhaneshar, was working as a Sweeper in the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, and died in harness on 28.08.2017, leaving the family in acute financial distress. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 04.09.2018 through proper channel, however, her application was rejected vide letter dated 10.06.2019 on the ground of lack of requisite educational qualification, despite the object of the policy being to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family. Thereafter, the

¶24

3

¶25

petitioner sought reconsideration of her claim in the light of the State Government circular dated 14.06.2013, but the sudden deterioration in the family’s financial condition was not duly considered. Subsequent to the rejection, the petitioner completed her High School and Higher Secondary examinations in the year 2021 from Government School, Rajnandgaon, and thereafter submitted fresh representations on 09.11.2021 and 30.12.2021, seeking compassionate appointment.

¶26

4. The petitioner asserts that though compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, the right to be considered in accordance with the prevailing policy and eligibility criteria is enforceable. The petitioner’s family has no sufficient source of income and the petitioner is also burdened with the responsibility of maintaining her minor child aged about three years. Despite repeated representations, the respondents have failed to take any decision on the petitioner’s claim on merits, compelling the petitioner to file the present petition.

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected solely on the ground that, at the time of submission and consideration of her application, she did not possess the minimum educational qualification prescribed under the applicable policy. It is submitted that no other ground or disqualification was assigned while rejecting her claim.

¶28

4

¶29

6. On specific query being made by this Court, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 fairly submits that as per the policy governing compassionate appointment in the Municipal Corporation, the minimum educational qualification required is pass in 8th Class, which the petitioner admittedly did not possess at the relevant point of time.

¶30

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that subsequent to rejection of her application, the petitioner has now acquired all the requisite educational qualifications, including passing of High School and Higher Secondary examinations, and thus satisfies the eligibility criteria under the compassionate appointment policy.

¶31

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 oppose the writ petition and submit that the petitioner’s application was considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. It is contended that eligibility conditions prescribed under the policy are mandatory in nature and since the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification at the time when her application was considered, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the rejection order. It is further submitted that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course.

¶32

9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

¶33

5

¶34

10. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected only on the ground that she did not possess the minimum educational qualification of 8th Class at the time of consideration of her application. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner suffers from any other ineligibility or that the family is not facing financial hardship.

¶35

11. It is well settled that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right; however, the right of an eligible dependent to be considered for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable policy is enforceable. Where rejection is based on a curable deficiency and such deficiency has subsequently been removed, denial of reconsideration would defeat the benevolent object of the scheme.

¶36

12. Considering the matter in its entirety, and having regard to the fact that the sole ground for rejection of the petitioner’s claim was nonpossession of the requisite educational qualification, which she has now admittedly acquired, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities are required to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with law.

¶37

13. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of the death in harness of her mother, who was an

¶38

6

¶39

employee of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, after due verification of her educational qualifications and other eligibility conditions, if any, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable period, preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶40

14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of . No order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶43

Yogesh

Radhika Patre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika Patre 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

Abdul Wahid Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harprasad Dhuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anuradha Jangade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sushila Verma

Vinod Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh