Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement of Peon After Compassionate Appointment Cancellation

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 94 | 2026:CGHC:1846

January 13, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside an order cancelling the compassionate appointment of a municipal employee, holding that the cancellation was arbitrary and contrary to the State’s own policy.

Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, sitting at the Bilaspur Bench, allowed a writ petition filed by Vinod Kumar Dagor, a peon working with the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. Dagor had been granted compassionate appointment on January 10, 2025, which was later cancelled by the Municipal Corporation on September 11, 2025, citing the absence of approval from the State Government.

Challenging the cancellation, the petitioner argued that the issue was already settled by an earlier decision of the High Court in Jaichand Sarthi vs State of Chhattisgarh. In that case, the Court had examined the State’s compassionate appointment policy dated June 14, 2013, and clarified that State Government approval is required only in limited circumstances, such as when applications are made beyond the prescribed time period.

The Court noted that Vinod Kumar Dagor had applied well within the stipulated time limit under the policy. As a result, treating his case as one requiring State-level approval reflected a clear non-application of mind. The Bench also observed that the authorities had failed to assign any cogent reasons for denying approval, rendering the cancellation order unsustainable in law.

Importantly, the Court reiterated that under the applicable policy, the competent authority for compassionate appointments in municipal bodies is the concerned Municipal Commissioner, not the State Government, where applications are made within time.

In view of these findings, the High Court quashed the cancellation order and directed the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur to reinstate the petitioner to the post of peon. While denying back wages for the intervening period, the Court ordered that Dagor’s seniority be counted from the date of his original appointment, without any break in service. All pending interlocutory applications in the matter were also disposed of.

Case Reference : WPS No. 297 of 2026, Vinod Kumar Dagor vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others; counsels: for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate; for the respondent State, Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer; and for respondent No. 3, Mr. Aniruddh Shrivastava, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate.