1 2025:CGHC:45136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4707 of 2021  Ku. Himmani Dhaneliya D/o Late Ramji Ram Dhaneliya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bhaisasur, Block And Tahsil Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education Ministry Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Secretary Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Chhattisarh, Indravati Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Collector District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 6. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 7. District Education Officer North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.04 17:56:15 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 03-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record form the concerned offices. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 18.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no. 7 i.e. District Education Officer, North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), and consequently direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the keeping in view the application circumstances of of for submission compassionate appointment, due to delay in preparing the second copy of service book of the late employee (father) of petitioner by the respondents department, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2) Facts of the present case are that the father of petitioner, namely, Ramji Dhaneliya, who was working as Assistant Teacher in the Govt. Primary School, Kesekodi Block – Koylibeda, District – 3 North Bastar-Kanker died in harness on 15.06.2002. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased (the petitioner’s mother) moved an application on 12.01.2004 regarding payment of G.P.F, family pension and gratuity, but to no avail. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application on 03.06.2021 seeking compassionate appointment and the same has been rejected on the ground of delay. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that service-book of father of petitioner was burnt in a naxal attack in the year 2000, owing to which respondent authorities paid the dues to the petitioners’ family only in year 2021 after preparation of second service-book. He further submits that admittedly, petitioner’s father died in the year 2002 but petitioner’s case is different because the original service-book of father of petitioner was burnt in the year 2000 and it took respondents more than 20 years to complete the second service-book and only after its completion, death-cum- pensionary benefits were extended to family of petitioner. He contends that respondent authorities ought to have considered peculiar circumstances surrounding the petitioner. He prays for a direction to respondent No. 7 to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that father of petitioner died on 15.06.2002 and petitioner moved application for grant of compassionate appointment in the year 2021, therefore the authority concerned rightly rejected the application on the 4 ground of delay and latches. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) Admittedly, father of the petitioner, who was working under the respondent authorities, died in harness on 15.06.2002. From the perusal of documents annexed in petition, it appears that petitioner attained the majority in the year 2003 itself and she moved application seeking compassionate appointment only on 03.06.2021. It is contended in the petition that service-book of petitioner was burnt in the year 2000 and second service-book got prepared in 2021 and thereafter, payment of death-cum- pensionary dues were extended to the family of petitioner. Be that as it may, since the death of government servant occurred on 15.06.2002, cause of action arose in the year 2002 whereas the daughter of the deceased employee moved application for grant of compassionate appointment in the year 2021, i.e. after delay of long 19 years. 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, 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 5 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 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 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 6 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, shall be granted as per above policy instructions." 9) In the present case, father of the petitioner died on 15.06.2002 and though the petitioner attained majority in 2003 but she moved the application on 03.06.2021. 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 7 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 A j i n k y a