1 2025:CGHC:8040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2036 of 2023 1 - Jayant Kujur S/o Late Shimon Kujur Aged About 25 Years Student, R/o Ward No. 1 Ambikapur Road, Near Jaybharti Centre, Pathalgoan, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman Head Office Sundar Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its General Manager, Head Office Sundar Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Regional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Near Shyam Petrol Pump, 3rd Floor One India Family Mart, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Shengale, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.03.26 16:36:20 +0530 2 14/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Nande, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Raj Shengale, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the respondent/s. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned communication dated 13.02.2023 Annexure P-1 and direct the respondent authority to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay compensation to the petitioner for illegal and unnecessarily depriving the petitioner for his legal right for such long period. 10.4. Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioners including the cost of the petition” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner late Shimon Kujur was working as Branch Manager in Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred as CRGB), Branch Kapu Dist. Raigarh, who died on 15.04.2005 while he was in service leaving behind widow and a minor son. The petitioner’s father served to the bank with honesty, diligently and to the most satisfaction of superior and colleagues after service of long period. He died due to harness suddenly on 15.04.2005.(Annexure P/4). The petitioners mother applied for appointment on compassionate ground immediately after the death of her husband on 23.10.2005 3 before the respondent authority. (Annexure P-5). Later on she filed another application on 17.08.2009 to provide appointment to her son Jayant Kujur immediately after attaining age of majority. After attaining the age of majority the petitioner himself written a letter to respondent authority on 11.06.2018 requesting to provide appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father. After some time, again the petitioner submitted another application on 29.04.2022 before the respondent authority for providing him compassionate appointment. The provision of compassionate appointment dated 29.01.1988 was existing on the date of the petitioner's father. There after a circular was issued on 09.07.1991 by the chairman of the respondent bank in which a clear direction was issued for providing compassionate appointment after death of the employee. The petitioner has completed his post graduate in English and currently perusing B.Ed. Whereas the impugned communication dated 13.02.2023 has been issued by the respondent bank regarding non providing of the compassionate appointment to the petitioner, which is totally arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and unfair as per the provision prevailing at the time of the death of the petitioners father i.e. on 15.04.2005 even the mother of the petitioner has already submitted application for her self and later on another application was submitted, after attaining the age of majority of her son. As there is no earning member in the family of the deceased, both mother and son are dependent 4 upon the deceased employee, and are suffering a lot of financial crises due to illness of his mother. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the law with respect to delay in submitting application for grant of compassionate appointment in a time-bound manner or as per the policy is very well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments, the most recent of which being The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219. Further stated that the earlier two applications dated 23.10.2005 (Annexure P / 5 ) and 17.08.2009 (Annexure P / 6 ) were not received by the respondent bank. The respondent bank received the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment for the first time on 11.06.2018 which was received by the respondents on 26.05.2018 at Raigarh (CG), i.e., after a delay of thirteen (13) years from the date of death of the deceased employee and as per Circular dated 09.07.1991 (Annexure P/9 ) the time limit for filing application for grant of compassionate appointment is one year from the date of death of the employee. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, limited prayed made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for grant of 5 compassionate appointment expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi