1 2025:CGHC:37085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2204 of 2021  Anju Kanwar D/o Late Shri Vijay Singh Kanwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Manpur, Post- Banjhhiban, Podi Uproda District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Development Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan, Fourth Floor, North Block, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 5. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services. Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 6. Chief Execuive Officer, Jila Panchayat Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 7. Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Anu Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order dated 08/02/2021, Bearing no. 282/J.P./Stha.Vi./2020-21, Passed by respondent no.4 and Order dated 28/01/2021, Bearing no. 316/Vi-2/Stha./2021. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, Late Shri Vijay Singh Kanwar, was posted on the post of Sub-Engineer, in the Rural Engineering Services Department at Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara; he died in harness on 24.07.2004. The deceased left behind his three children and wife. At the time of the death of her father, the petitioner was 10 years old, and immediately after passing the Class 12th examination, she moved an application for the compassionate appointment in the year 2013, but the same was not considered by the respondent authorities, therefore, she again moved a fresh representation on 05.02.2020, which was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 28.01.2021 on the ground that the petitioner had submitted application after a lapse of about 15 years from the date of the death of her father. Against the said order, this petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a minor on the date of the death of her father, and she approached the authorities for the grant of compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority in the year 2013, and thus, the application was within limitation. She would also submit that the respondent authorities have committed an error of law while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. She 3 would pray to set aside the orders dated 08.02.2021 and 28.01.2021. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the application for the compassionate appointment was not moved within the prescribed period of limitation. He would further submit that after 9 years from the date of the death of a government servant, the application was moved by the petitioner, and there is no provision for condonation of delay in the policy for compassionate appointment. He would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 24.07.2004, and at that time, the petitioner was a minor, and after attaining the age of majority, she moved an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2013. Again, a representation was made before respondent No. 3 and the said application was rejected vide order dated 28.01.2021 and thus, the petitioner has already survived for more than 15 years without getting a compassionate appointment. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 471 held in paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under:- "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 4 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 appointments 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. 9. As the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment after more than 9 years, particularly, after attaining the majority and according to the policy, the maximum period provided to move an application for the compassionate appointment was 3 to 5 years, and there is no provision for condonation of delay. Further, as the petitioner has 5 already survived for more than 15 years, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment; thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 08.02.2021. 10. 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. 11. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant