1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5608 of 2023 1 - Vishal Kumar S/o Dablu Ram, Aged About 22 Years R/o Birasa Munda Chowk, Karbala Road Jashpur Nagar District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director, Urban Administration And Development Department, Regional Office Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State :- Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 :- Mr. Manas Vajpai, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 05.01.2026 1. The present petition is not directed against any specific order, but against the inaction on the part of the respondents, who have failed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. Despite the fact that the petitioner is duly qualified and fulfills all eligibility requirements, the respondents have neither provided compassionate appointment nor taken any decision on the petitioner’s application, and are deliberately delaying the matter. Hence, the present petition. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.2 That, The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased toprovide the Compassionate Appointment to the petitioner and direct the respondent authorities to provide dependent employment to the petitioner. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay compensation to the petitioners for illegally and unnecessarily depriving the petitioner of his legal rights. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded 3 to the petitioners including the cost of the petition..” 3. Facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was appointed on 22.12.2003 as a Sweeper (Cleaner) in the Municipal Council, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, and he died in harness on 08.01.2018, leaving behind his widow, son (the petitioner), brother and sister. The deceased employee served the department honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of his superiors throughout his service tenure. After his untimely death, the family was left without any source of livelihood, as the petitioner’s mother is a widow and there is no earning member in the family. Accordingly, the petitioner’s mother submitted representations dated 06.04.2018, 06.08.2019 and 23.08.2022 to the concerned authorities seeking compassionate appointment for a family member and release of widow pension, but no decision was taken. Even the Chief Municipal Officer, Jashpur, vide letter dated 25.07.2020, sought guidance from the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Ambikapur, regarding compassionate appointment; however, the petitioner’s application remains undecided till date. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was a minor, and upon attaining majority, he applied for compassionate appointment as per policy. Despite being fully eligible and continuously pursuing the matter, the respondents have failed to decide the application, causing grave financial 4 hardship to the petitioner’s family due to their arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable inaction, hence the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment has been pending before the respondents for an inordinate period without any decision, and such deliberate and unexplained delay amounts to denial of justice and defeats the very object of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that due to this continuous inaction, the petitioner and his family, consisting of a widow mother and no earning member after the death of the petitioner’s father, have been subjected to severe financial hardship. Despite the petitioner being eligible and the Chief Municipal Officer, Jashpur having acknowledged such eligibility, the respondents have failed to grant compassionate appointment, contrary to the State policy and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The arbitrary and discriminatory conduct of the respondents is evident from the fact that similarly situated persons have been granted compassionate appointment while the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of the same. Such apathetic and high-handed action on the part of the respondents, being instrumentalities of a welfare State, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents jointly submit that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and can be 5 granted only in strict accordance with the applicable State policy and subject to fulfillment of all prescribed conditions and availability of vacancies. It is contended that the petitioner’s case has been duly examined at the departmental level and any delay is procedural and administrative in nature, not deliberate or arbitrary. The respondents deny any discrimination and submit that cases of other appointees are factually distinguishable. It is therefore argued that there is no violation of Articles 14, 16 or 21 of the Constitution of India and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a careful perusal of the record, this Court finds that the limited grievance of the petitioner is not with respect to rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment, but with regard to prolonged inaction and non-consideration of his application by the respondent authorities. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father died in harness on 08.01.2018 while serving as a Sweeper in the Municipal Council, Jashpur, and that the petitioner was a minor at the time of death. It is also borne out from the record that after attaining majority, the petitioner submitted his application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable policy, which remains pending till date without any final decision. 6 8. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and cannot be claimed as a substitute for regular public employment. At the same time, it is equally well settled that when a policy for compassionate appointment exists, the competent authority is under a legal obligation to consider and decide such applications within a reasonable period. The undue and unexplained delay in taking a decision defeats the very object of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee in financial distress. 9. From the material available on record, it is evident that representations were made by the petitioner’s mother as early as in the year 2018 and thereafter on multiple occasions. Even the Chief Municipal Officer, Jashpur, sought guidance from the higher authorities regarding the petitioner’s case. However, despite the passage of several years, no final decision either granting or rejecting the claim has been communicated to the petitioner. The respondents have also not placed any material before this Court to justify such prolonged inaction. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the prevailing State policy and applicable rules. Such consideration shall be made by passing a reasoned 7 and speaking order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, which shall be independently examined by the competent authority. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha