1 (WPS No. 1747 of 2020) CGHC010089322020 2026:CGHC:37074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1747 of 2020 1 - Smt. Chhoti W/o Late Vinod Kumar Jogi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bhatpal, Sarpanchpara, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bastar, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 3 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department Bastar Division, Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Bastar Division, Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2026.08.20 18:23:45 +0530 2 (WPS No. 1747 of 2020) SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 19.08.2026 1. This writ petition has been filed on 12.03.2020, challenging order dated 19.04.2012 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that it has been barred by limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is absolutely unsustainable and bad in law and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India1 and the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Bhunbai Sahu v. Smt. Hamida Siddiqi2 to buttress his submission. 3. Learned State Counsel would support the impugned order and submit that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 1 AIR 1989 SC 1976 2 2002(1)CGLJ 257 3 (WPS No. 1747 of 2020) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the concerned government servant died on 12.12.2003 and the application for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on 19.04.2012, whereas this writ petition has been filed on 12.03.2020. As such, this writ petition is delayed by 8 years and there is no explanation for delay in filing this writ petition. Furthermore, the government servant died on 12.12.2003 and there is no point in directing for grant of compassionate appointment after passing of more than 23 years as the very object of granting compassionate appointment no longer subsists because the petitioner and her family have been able to survive for such long years. Moreover, the judgment in the matter of Smt. Sushma Gosain (supra) as cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein it has been held that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment would not be applicable here. Similarly, the decision rendered in the matter of Smt. Bhunbai Sahu (supra) would also be not applicable here. 4 (WPS No. 1747 of 2020) As such, the petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected in the year 2012 and there is a delay of around 8 years by the petitioner in approaching this Court. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!