1 2025:CGHC:16751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6000 of 2017  Ku. Smriti Verma D/o Shobhit Ram Verma, D/o Late Smt. Manisha Verma Aged About 20 Years R/o Tehsil And District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh State Through Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Block Education Officer, Gariyaband District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09. 04.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent no. 1 to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment in pursuance of policy dated 10.06.1994, in the ends of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner, including cost.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Manisha Verma was posted on the post of Assistant Teacher under SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.11 17:54:55 +0530 2 respondent No. 2, she died in harness on 09.12.2000. The deceased left behind her two daughters and one brother. The date of birth of the petitioner is 30.07.1997, she passed the Class Xth examination in the year 2011 and the Class XIIth examination in the year 2013, thereafter, she moved an application for the compassionate appointment on 05.08.2015, which was rejected by the department vide order dated 29.08.2017, against that order, this petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents wrongly applied the policy of 2003, whereas, the mother of the petitioner had died in the year 2000 and at that time, the policy of 1994 was in existence, which provides that the dependent of the deceased Government servant may approach the authorities for the compassionate appointment after attaining the age of the majority. She would further submit that the petitioner attained the majority in the year 2015, and thereafter, moved an application for the compassionate appointment on 05.08.2015, and thus, the application was within limitation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 5. Heard. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the mother of the petitioner died in harness on 09.12.2000 and at that time, the petitioner was a minor and after attaining the majority, she moved an application for compassionate appointment on 05.08.2015, and thus, the petitioner survived for more than 15 years without getting the compassionate appointment. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 471 held at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under:- 3 "7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee. 8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable." 8. The very object of providing compassionate appointment is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time and the same has been achieved as the family has already survived for such a long period. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that the compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to families who have experienced a sudden hardship. 4 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant