Shamsher Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shamsher Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 08.01.2020 set aside; matter remitted to the competent authority to decide the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with the policy of the State Government; no costs awarded.

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment solely on the ground that his name was not entered in the service book of the deceased is illegal and unsustainable.

Court's answer

The competent authority was required to proceed in accordance with law; if the petitioner comes under the definition of 'family' as defined under the policy of the State Government, his case for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with that policy — rejection solely for non-entry of his name in the service record is not sustainable.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 08.01.2020 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority to decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the policy of the State Government.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merit of the case; the competent authority shall decide the case of the petitioner on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — Application of petitioner (family member of a deceased employee) rejected by order dated 08.01.2020 solely on the ground that his name was not entered in the government record/service book of the deceased — Held: the competent authority was required to proceed in accordance with law; if the petitioner comes under the definition of 'family' under the State Government policy, his case has to be considered in accordance with that policy — Impugned order set aside and matter remitted to the competent authority to decide afresh in accordance with the State Government policy — Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits — Writ petition allowed, no costs. (Single Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.; decided 12.02.2026.)

1

2026:CGHC:7748

ASHOK SAHU

Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.02.12 14:40:38 +0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 858 of 2020

Shamsher Khan, S/o. Late Md. Jahiuddin Khan, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Begdai, Post Office Dongargao, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Chief Executive Officer, Water Resources Department, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Deputy Director Water, Weather Department, Region No. – 04, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4 – Collector, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate

2

(Single Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

12.02.2026

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 08.01.2020, whereby the petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected only on the ground that his name has not been entered into the government record (service book).

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that mainly because the name of the petitioner has not been entered in the service book of the deceased, his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected, which is illegal and bad in law.

Learned State counsel would support the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities and submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents meticulously.

The petitioner’s application has been rejected solely on the ground that his name has not been entered into the service record of the

3

deceased. However, the competent authority was required to proceed in accordance with law. If the petitioner comes under the definition of family, as defined under the policy of the State Government, the case of the petitioner has to be considered in accordance with the policy.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 08.01.2020 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the policy of the State Government. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and the competent authority shall decide the case of the petitioner, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. No cost.

Ashok