1 2025:CGHC:22553-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 313 of 2025 Brinda Prasad S/o Nanhu Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Murmur, Block Pendra, District Bilaspur (Now Gourela Pendra Marwahi) Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director Directorate of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Department First Floor, C-Block Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Executive Officer Zila Janpach Panchayat Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.10 14:55:44 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 .06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 106 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7480 of 2023 (Brinda Prasad vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 4. Facts of the case in brief is that the brother of the appellant, namely, Gokul Singh was working in the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III at Government Middle School Semri, Block Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.). He passed away in harness on 02.06.2010. The wife of the appellant being dependent upon the earnings of the deceased, moved an application for 3 grant of compassionate appointment to the appellant/brother of the deceased before the respondent authorities, but till today, the same has not been decided. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the family of the appellant suffering from financial crisis due to sudden death of his brother, and therefore, according to the policy of the govt. of Chhattisgarh the appellant requested to the respondent authorities to appoint him on the compassionate basis in time to time. He further submits that the appellant has filed an application for appointment on compassionate basis in the year 2010 and after lapse of more than 15 years, the application has not been decided by the respondent authorities till date. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the appellant and his family members have continuously approached to the respondent authorities for compassionate appointment in every time, then the respondent authorities has given orally reply to take appropriate further action with regard to compassionate appointment, but without any fault on the part of the appellant, the application of the appellant has not being take decision for compassionate appointment. He also contended that the appellant has submitted representation on the compassionate basis before the respondent authorities, but no action has been taken by the respondent authorities and no response upon the representation of the appellant till date. But, the learned Single Judge without considering the same dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 20.11.2024. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned 4 Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that according to policy for compassionate appointment, a dependent of deceased can apply for compassionate appointment within a period of 03 years which can be extended for a period of 01 more year, whereas, the appellant has moved application after 12-13 years, therefore, his application has rightly been rejected by the authorities. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 9. Learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of 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, on which the 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 5 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 6 compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable.” 10. Learned Single Judge also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Nirval Singh, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 774, 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: “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, 7 shall be granted as per above policy instructions.” 11. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that the brother of the appellant died on 02.06.2010 and the appellant approached this Court after lapse of 12-13 years. The policy provides for a period of 03 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, learned Single Judge does not find any good ground to interfere into the matter. 12. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan