1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Jugment Reserved on : 30/06/2025 Judgment Delivered on: 17/09/2025 WPS No. 5487 of 2025 1 - Prakash Upadhayay S/o Late Sanjay Upadhayay Aged About 23 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Raipur, B-6, Gudhiyari, Pahadi Chowk, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Dept. Of Public Health And Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Director (A And R) Directorate Of Health Services Chhattisgarh, Swastha Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Health And Medical Officer O/o Chief Health And Medical Officer, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. CAV Judgment 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the letter dated 29-04-2025 (Annexure P- 1), whereby the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the grounds of delay in applying for compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was employed as a M.P.W. and posted at the Community Health Centre, Gudhiyari, District Raipur. He died on 13-08-2014 in harness. At the time of ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.17 17:57:32 +0530 2 his death, the petitioner was about 11 years old and was a minor. At the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, the department had not provided any information about the provisions of compassionate appointment and documentation. After attaining the age of majority and the acquisition of the educational qualification, he made an application on 06-06-2021, before the Respondent No. 3, for the grant of compassionate appointment. The respondent No. 2 also directed the respondent No. 3 to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Clause 15(8) of the circular dated 14-06- 2013 issued by the State Government. Ultimately, vide letter dated 29-04- 2025, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that after a lapse of 05 years, the compassionate appointment cannot be given. She would submit that after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner moved his application for the grant of compassionate appointment. No information was given to the petitioner or his mother about the provisions of compassionate appointment, and therefore, the bar of 05 years is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Considering the beneficial provisions, the petitioner may be provided compassionate appointment in the department. Hence, this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the father of the petitioner is died in the year 2014 and he made his application in the year 2021, which is beyond the period prescribed in the compassionate appointment policy of the state government. He would also submit that the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was decided by the authorities as per the existing policy for the same prevailing on the date of death of the government servant. Therefore, the petition is suffering from delay and latches, and no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 3 5. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died on 13-08-2014, the petitioner made his application for compassionate appointment on 06-06-2021, which was rejected on 29-04-2025 on the grounds of delay in making the application for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed on 11-06-2025. 6. It is well settled that a claim of the compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the concerned employee. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as the compassionate appointment is made to enable the family to tide over the crisis which is caused as the result of death of an employee in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. This view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh”, reported in 2019(6) SCC 774 and “Indian Bank & Ors Vs. Promila & Anr” reported in 2020 (2) SCC 729, and it has also been held that though the Court has sympathy with the family members of the deceased, who face the death of the deceased, but sympathy alone cannot be the basis for granting remedy to such family members and it is not for the Courts to substitute a scheme, to add or subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B”, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331 held as under: "18. 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 4 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 dependants 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. 19. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the Respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the Respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon”, (2021) 16 SCC 384 held as under: "8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana: (1994) 4 SCC 138). It was further observed in the said 5 judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period, as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 9. In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the facts of the present case and further keeping in mind the delay, and applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred herein above and on perusal of the contents of this petition, this Court reaches to the conclusion that the Petitioner has no vested right to claim compassionate appointment as per the policy formulated by the State and no writ of mandamus can be issued after prolonged delay since the death of the concerned employee. 10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok