1 2025:CGHC:28694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5986 of 2017 1 - Govind Kumar Yadav S/o Sevak Ram Yadav, Aged About 25 Years Landless Educated Unemployed, Belonging To Reservation Category As Backward Class R/o Village Bhawrid, Post Office Amakhoha, Tahsil And Police Station Kasdol, In The Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Samanya Prshashan General Administration New Rajdhani, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Assistant Commissioner, Sahayak Ayukt, Adivashi Vikas Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Ayuktcommissioner Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Chhattisgarh. Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Adivasi Vikas, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Officer Collector Adivasi Vikas Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 7 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 8 - The District Education Officer, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None, even in second round For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 27-06-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, the writ, direction and order appropriate do issue in the nature of mandamus, certiorari prohibition do issue that the petitioner may kindly be appointed as compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father Sewak Ram Yadav who had been appointed as Rasoiya in Govt. School Adivashi Chhatravas at Pawani Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) on 17.02.1997 and several vide Annexure P-3 being his son landless poor person educated unemployed having no source of income and his application (Annexure P-2) dated 01.03.2007 may kindly be decided and directed protecting statutory legal right for any appropriate place of service and any appropriate post of substantial justice. 10.2 That, the writ direction and order appropriate do issue in the nature of mandamus, certiorari prohibition etc. that after the rejection of application for compassionate appointment of the mother of the petitioner by name Gautarhin Bai filed dated 25.07.2005 (Annexure P-7) and on the ground that she had not passed school examination of 5th class vide order dated 28.03.2006 (Annexure P-10) by the respondent State of Chhattisgarh through the Assistant Commission to providing any appropriate post of service despite which the petitioner has not been provided compassionate appointment and the acts proceeding of the respondents are arbitrary, perverse, irrational, and illegal as such need for this writ petition for substantial justice. 10.3 That the writ direction and order appropriate do issue in the nature of mandamus certiorari etc. do issue the representationdated 25.09.2017 (Annexure P-15) and prayer of petitioner be directed to be decided the petitioner be appointed in appropriate place of service posting and to appropriate post protecting legal and statutory right of the petitioner and by not involving complications of procedural prolonging process. 10.4 That, the entire records registered proceeding 3 document be called upon from the respondents for perusal of this Honble Court. 10.5 Any other relief under aforesaid legal averments and factual aspect may also be kindly granted in favor of petitioner. 2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner’s father, namely, Sevak Ram Yadav, who was working as a Cook since 14.01.1990 in the Tribal Hostel, Govt. School, Purgaon, Tehsil- Bilaigarh, District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, died in harness on 23.06.2005 which is evident from Annexure P/12. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased (the petitioner’s mother) moved an application on 25.07.2005 for compassionate appointment and it was rejected vide order dated 28.03.2006 on the ground that she did not have the requisite educational qualification. Subsequently, the petitioner attained the majority in the year 2010 and later on, moved an application in the month of September, 2017 seeking compassionate appointment and the same has not been considered yet. 3) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in two rounds. 4) Learned State counsel submits that the father of the petitioner was a Cook under the respondents, who died in harness on 23.06.2005 and the application moved by the petitioner’s mother for the grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on 28.03.2006 and that order was not challenged before the higher forum, thus it attained finality. He further submits that though the petitioner attained the majority in the year 2010, but he waited for long seven years and moved the application in 2017. He contends that according to policy for compassionate appointment, a dependent of deceased can apply for compassionate appointment within a period of 3 years which can be 4 extended for a period of 1 more year but petitioner approached the authorities at a belated stage, therefore his claim deserves to be rejected. 5) Heard learned State counsel and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, who was working under the respondent authorities, died in harness on 23.06.2005. Thereafter, the first application was moved by the petitioner’s mother on 25.07.2005 and the same was rejected on the ground that she did not have the requisite educational qualification vide order dated 28.03.2006. It appears that the said order was never challenged before any higher forum, thus it attained finality. Petitioner attained the majority in the year 2010 and for the first time, he moved application seeking compassionate appointment in the month of September, 2017. 7) In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate1, Hon’ble Supreme Court held at 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 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 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 5 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh2, it has been held at paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under : "7. In our view there is more than one impediment in the way of the respondent. 8. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same. 9. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant clause of the new policy which reads as under: 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 6 "The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the date of issue of instructions. The cases, where compassionate employment has not been given due to discontinuance of the earlier policy since 4/2002, shall also be considered and requisite relief, in lieu compassionate employment, shall be granted as per above policy instructions." 9) In the present case, father of the petitioner died on 23.06.2005 and though the petitioner attained the majority in 2010 but he moved the application in September, 2017 after lapse of 7 years. Further, the policy provides for a period of 3 years, which can be extended for one more year to move application for compassionate appointment. The very object of providing compassionate appointment is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time and same has been achieved as the family has already survived for such a long period. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to families who have experienced sudden hardship, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere into the matter. 10) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya