1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2330 of 2017 1 - Smt. Sunita Widow Of Late Chait Ram Aged About 56 Years R/o Bhattapara, Behind District Hospital, Ambikapur, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Amresh Kumar S/o Late Chait Ram, Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhattapara, Behind District Hospital, Ambikapur, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Koria District Koria, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to -2- direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment in the favour of petitioner No.2. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release family pension as well as other benefits in the favour of petitioners. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the cash. 3. Ms. Kuldeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner No.2 namely Chait Ram, who was working in the post of ‘Sweeper’ under respondent No.2/Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, died in harness on 20.11.2005. She would further submit that an application for the compassionate appointment was moved by petitioner No.2 on 17.02.2006 and 26.02.2007. She would contend that when the petitioners did not receive any response from the respondent authorities, this petition was filed. Ms. Kuldeep would also submit that recently it has been informed that due to incorrect dispatch number, the petitioners could not be communicated. She would further submit that the petitioners have been directed to submit the relevant documents. She would lastly submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to decide the pending application expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Kuldeep. He would submit that petitioner No.2 is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment as the application was not moved within the prescribed limitation period and in proper format. He would lastly submit that the petition preferred 3 by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the application for compassionate appointment was moved by Petitioner No.2 immediately after the death of his father and due to incorrect dispatch number, the petitioners did not receive any communication from the department, therefore, petitioner No.2 could not submit the relevant documents. As informed by Ms. Kuldeep, recently, the petitioners have received a letter from the department, whereby, they have been directed to submit relevant documents, therefore, the petitioners are directed to submit relevant documents with the department within a period of 30 days from today and in turn, the respondent authorities are directed to decide the pending application of petitioner No.2 for the compassionate appointment preferably within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With regard to the retiral dues, Ms. Kuldeep would submit that petitioner No.1 has already received admissible dues. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha