1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8432 of 2023 1 - Yashoda Sidar D/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Sidar Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village Kharri (Bade), Tahsil- Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Education Officer Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Development Block Education Officer Tamnar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development- Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. V. Jayant Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For State :- Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 09.02.2026 1. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 06.07.2023 issued by the office of respondent No.2, whereby the respondent authorities have denied the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment solely on the ground that the death of her father occurred prior to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh into the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. It is submitted that the said rejection is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the notification dated 02.02.2006 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, wherein it has been specifically provided that cases of compassionate appointment pertaining to deaths occurring even prior to the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh are liable to be considered. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent no. 3 to consider her compassionate appointment. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ order/ directions towards the respondents to pay other payable benefits and allowances to the petitioner with retrospective effect. 3 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community (Gond) and is the daughter of Late Shri Shyam Lal Sidar, who was working as Head Master of Primary School, Kerakhol, Development Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.), and who expired on 31.05.1995. After attaining the requisite qualification, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.10.2016 before the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raigarh, seeking compassionate appointment on account of the death of her father, along with all requisite documents. In the said representation, the petitioner specifically brought on record the surrounding circumstances and grievances, including the fact that her widowed mother was earlier denied compassionate appointment on the ground of illiteracy and minority of legal heirs, and that her elder sister, upon attaining majority in the year 2011, had also made several representations which were rejected through a non-speaking order without assigning any valid reasons. The petitioner further submitted affidavits along with her representation, including no-objection affidavits from her mother and elder sister, clearly stating that none of the dependent family members are employed under the State Government. After repeated refusals of the rightful claim of her elder sister, the petitioner, despite extreme financial hardship, managed to complete her studies and, upon attaining majority, approached respondent No.4 seeking compassionate 4 appointment; however, her claim was also denied arbitrarily. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No.3, in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is arbitrary and bad in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community and comes from an extremely indigent background. The widowed mother of the petitioner was earlier denied compassionate appointment on the ground of illiteracy, and thereafter, the elder sister of the petitioner was also denied appointment despite attaining majority, without assigning any cogent reasons. In such circumstances, the petitioner, being conscious of the reasons cited for rejection of her family members, made sincere efforts to complete her education so as to make herself eligible for appointment, with the legitimate expectation that her case would be considered sympathetically in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that the sole ground on which the petitioner’s application has been rejected is that the death of her father occurred prior to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh. It is argued that such a ground is wholly untenable in view of the notification dated 02.02.2006 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which clearly provides that cases of compassionate appointment pertaining to deaths occurring even prior to the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh are liable to be considered. It is also submitted that when the State of 5 Chhattisgarh is extending pensionary benefits to the dependents of employees who died prior to the bifurcation, there is no justification whatsoever for denying compassionate appointment on the same set of facts. Such selective application of policy amounts to hostile discrimination and defeats the very object of the compassionate appointment scheme. Learned counsel emphasizes that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased government servant and to protect the dependents from financial distress, starvation, and vagrancy. The repeated rejection of the petitioner’s claim over the years has frustrated the very purpose of the policy and has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner and her dependent family members. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order be quashed and the respondent authorities be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and the applicable policy. 5. Learned State counsel appearing for the State submits that the father of the petitioner, Late Shri Shyamlal Sidar, who was working as Head Master at Primary School, Kerakhol, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.), expired on 31.05.1995. At the relevant time, the petitioner was a minor. After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted a representation along with an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2016, enclosing relevant documents. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted a representation before the District Education Officer, Raigarh, on 03.07.2023. Learned State counsel submits that the 6 petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was duly considered by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the policy/circular dated 10.06.2003 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. As per Clause 12, sub-clause (5) of the said circular, compassionate appointment is permissible only in those cases where the death of the government servant occurred on or after 01.11.2000. Since the death of the petitioner’s father occurred on 31.05.1995, the petitioner’s case clearly falls outside the scope of the said policy. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid policy provision, the competent authority rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment vide order dated 06.07.2023. The rejection is neither arbitrary nor illegal and has been passed strictly in accordance with the applicable policy which was in force at the relevant time. Learned State counsel further submits that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is governed strictly by the policy framed by the State Government. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee, and therefore, the application is required to be made within the stipulated time prescribed under the policy. In the present case, the application was submitted after a lapse of about 21 years from the date of death of the employee, for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the petitioner. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays that the writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 7 record. 7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father, Late Shri Shyam Lal Sidar, expired in harness on 31.05.1995. The first application seeking compassionate appointment at the instance of the petitioner was submitted in the year 2016, i.e., after a lapse of about 21 years from the date of death of the employee. Even thereafter, the claim came to be pursued intermittently and was ultimately rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 06.07.2023. 8. The law relating to compassionate appointment is well settled. Compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right. It is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and is intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness, leaving the family in sudden penury. The very object of such a scheme is to mitigate the immediate hardship caused by the death of the breadwinner. If the family is able to survive for a long period after the death of the employee, the basis for granting compassionate appointment ceases to exist. 9. In the present case, the death occurred in the year 1995. The petitioner approached the authorities in 2016 after an extraordinary delay of more than two decades. Such a prolonged lapse of time completely defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment. A claim raised after 21 years cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a claim for “immediate succour.” The scheme is not meant to provide employment as a matter of delayed rehabilitation or as an 8 alternative mode of public employment after the crisis period has long passed. 10. The policy/circular dated 10.06.2003 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, specifically restricts compassionate appointment to cases where the death of the government servant occurred on or after 01.11.2000. Since the petitioner’s father died on 31.05.1995, her case squarely falls outside the scope of the applicable policy. The competent authority, therefore, committed no illegality in rejecting the claim in terms of the governing policy. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rejection order dated 06.07.2023 has been passed strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and does not suffer from any arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits and hit by gross delay and laches deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha