1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9050 of 2023 1 - Mordhwaj Sidar S/o Late Balram Sidar Aged About 18 Years Caste Gond, R/o Masniyankala Village, Tahsil And P.S. Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Education Officer District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Block Education Officer District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate For State :- Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 20.02.2026 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondent authorities in rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment after the death of his father while in service. The petitioner had submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment; however, Respondent No. 5, by letter dated 07.08.2023, rejected the same solely on the ground of delay. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and studying in primary school, and his mother is old, illiterate, and unaware of the relevant rules and procedures, due to which the application could not be submitted earlier. The impugned rejection, without considering the bona fide reasons and the object of compassionate appointment, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, hence the present petition. 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 issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash Annexure P/1 in the interest of justice. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to give compassionate appointment to petitioner 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and 3 proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, Late Balram Sidar, was working as Pradhan Pathak at Government Secondary School, Keribandha, Development Block Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh, and died in harness on 15.05.2013, leaving behind his minor son and two wives, as evidenced by the death certificate and service record. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was a minor and studying in primary school, and both the petitioner and his mothers, being old and illiterate, had no knowledge of the rules governing compassionate appointment. Upon attaining majority, the petitioner, who has passed the Class 10th examination and is the only legitimate child of the deceased employee, submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 13.12.2022 along with all requisite documents. However, the respondent authorities rejected the petitioner’s claim solely on the ground of delay by impugned order dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure P/1), without considering that the petitioner became eligible only in the year 2022 and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 15(2) and Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh General Department Rules are not applicable to the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in denying compassionate appointment is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the very object and scheme of compassionate appointment. It is contended that the petitioner, being a dependent family member of a Government 4 servant who died in harness, was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, and denial of such consideration violates Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the rejection on the ground of delay is wholly unjustified, as the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of the deceased employee and, upon attaining majority in the year 2022, applied without any undue delay; hence, Rules 15(2) and 16 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is argued that the very purpose of the scheme is to provide immediate succour and livelihood to the bereaved family left in penury due to the death of the breadwinner, and the respondents’ failure to adhere to their own rules and policy governing compassionate appointment has resulted in grave hardship to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that due to the negligence and careless attitude of the respondent authorities, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer, and therefore the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and has rightly been opposed, as no application for compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner or any other dependent within the prescribed period after the death of the deceased employee on 15.05.2013. It is contended that the petitioner submitted his application only on 13.12.2022, after a lapse of about nine years, which is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed under Clause 15(2) and Clause 16 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 23.02.2019, which mandates filing of the application within three months and, in 5 exceptional circumstances, within a maximum of three to five years with due approval. Learned counsel further submits that the policy does not confer any right to seek compassionate appointment merely on attaining majority after a long lapse of time, as compassionate appointment is intended only to tide over the immediate financial crisis arising due to the death of the breadwinner. Since the petitioner’s family has survived for more than nine years after the death of the deceased employee, the very object of compassionate appointment stands frustrated. It is further argued that compassionate appointment is not a mode of regular appointment and does not create any vested or enforceable right, and therefore the rejection order dated 07.08.2023 is legal, valid and in accordance with the policy, warranting dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 15.05.2013 and that the petitioner was a minor at the relevant time. It is also not in dispute that the application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the petitioner on 13.12.2022 after attaining majority and the same has been rejected by Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 07.08.2023 solely on the ground of delay. 8. The law with regard to compassionate appointment is well settled. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is an exception to the general rule of recruitment. It is intended to provide immediate 6 financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness, to tide over the sudden crisis. At the same time, it is equally settled that where the dependent was a minor at the time of death of the employee, the claim cannot be rejected mechanically without examining the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable policy provisions. The authorities are required to consider whether the case falls within the ambit of the scheme/policy in force and whether any relaxation, if permissible under the policy, is warranted in the peculiar facts of the case. 9. In the present case, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions with regard to applicability of Clause 15(2) and Clause 16 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 23.02.2019, as the same would require factual consideration by the competent authority. However, it appears that the impugned order dated 07.08.2023 has been passed without adverting to the specific plea of the petitioner that he was a minor at the time of death of the deceased employee and became eligible only upon attaining majority. 10. In view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent respondent authority to reconsider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable policy and law, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of the deceased employee, and to 7 pass a reasoned and speaking order. 11. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner, and the authority shall decide the matter independently, strictly in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha