-1- 2025:CGHC:43410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4210 of 2022 Smt. Meena Sahu D/o Late Shri Bodhai Ram Sahu , W/o Shri Gopal Prasad Sahu Aged About 30 Years Occupation - Un-Employed R/o. Ward No.5 Near Ram Mandir, Yadav Nagar (Tifra) Bilaspur, Thana-Sirgitti, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Through-Its Managing Director, Daganiya Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Through - Its Director General Manager (HRD), Daganiya Raipur, Distt.-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Director, Human Resources Holding Company Limited, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Daganiya Raipur, Distt.-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Executive Engineer, (Civil-Pareshan) Division Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Bilaspur , Distt.-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.02 12:43:15 +0530 -2- be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 2. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the order passed by this Hon’ble court in the cases of similar situated persons and as per policy dated 30.01.1997. 10.3 That the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioner. 10.4 That any other / relief order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the cost of the petition may kindly be passed.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition has been preferred against the arbitrary action of the respondents in rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner, namely late Shri Bodhai Ram Sahu, who was working as Civil Paricharak Grade-II in the respondent department, died in harness on 20.03.2000. After his death, the petitioner’s mother, Smt. Samunda Bai, moved an application for compassionate appointment, which was rejected on the ground that she was uneducated and the case pertained to the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, upon attaining majority and completing higher secondary education, the petitioner herself applied for compassionate appointment in place of her mother. However, vide letter dated 02.03.2022, her application was returned stating that it was not filed within one year of the death of the employee. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the -3- writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted that the petitioner’s mother had already applied for compassionate appointment which was rejected, but such rejection was never challenged. The present petition is filed after more than two decades of the death of the employee, and therefore, no claim for compassionate appointment is maintainable. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 5) 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:- "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 -4- 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." 6) 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. 7) Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. It can be granted only in terms of the prevailing policy and long delay and survival of the family for many years after the death of the employee disentitle the claimant. 8) In the present case, the father of the petitioner died on 20.03.2000. The application filed by the petitioner’s mother was rejected long ago. The petitioner approached the respondents only in the year 2021, i.e., after more than two decades. Such an inordinate delay defeats the very object of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family. 9) Admittedly, the petitioner’s family has survived all these years without compassionate appointment, which shows that the object of immediate financial relief no longer exists. Further, rejection of the mother’s application has attained finality, and the petitioner cannot now seek prayer to reopen the matter. -5- 10) In view of the settled legal position and the facts of the case, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 02.03.2022. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti