1 2025:CGHC:12781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1832 of 2025 1 - Ashwini Tiwari S/o Late Satyanarayan Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o Sarda Vihar, Mana Camp, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home/ Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General of Police (D.G.P.) Police Headquarters, Sector- 19, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Inspector General of Police Administration Police Headquarters, Sector-19, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.03.19 10:31:16 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 18/03/2025 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17/08/2016, by which, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that he is a nephew of the deceased employee and as such he is not entitled for the compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the death of the deceased employee namely Anoop Kumar Tiwari, the petitioner being a dependent and nephew of the deceased employee moved an application for compassionate appointment on 24/03/2016 stating therein that he is fully dependent upon the deceased employee who used to extend financial support for his educational and other purposes. However, the respondents authorities without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective, declined to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The said order is illegal, arbitrary and not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. Learned counsel for the State, per contra, would support the order impugned and stated that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as he is not come within the definition of legal heirs of the deceased employee. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 3 5. The deceased employee died on 24/03/2016 in harness. The petitioner herein is a nephew of the said deceased employee. In support of his adoption by the deceased employee, the petitioner has not produced any legally permissible documents. Even otherwise, the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected in the month of August, 2016 and the same has duly been communicated to him, however, the petitioner has not taken any steps to challenge the said order and he filed the present petition in the month of March, 2025 i.e. after a period of more than eight months. 6. It is trite law that if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (See: Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v T.T. Murali Babu1). 7. So far as denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in lieu of death of deceased employee is concerned, the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the 1 (2014) 4 SCC 108 4 financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family. The compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. In fact, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep