1 2025:CGHC:9321 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5447 of 2019 1 - Sameer Kumar Uikey S/o Manohar Lal Uike Aged About 32 Years Caste Mahar, R/o Rice Mill Road, Budharaopara, Ward No. 8, Nagari, Village And Post Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Work Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG). ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 24/02/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner seeking compassionate appointment against the sad demise of his father in harness, who died on 21.6.1998. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-II under Public Work Department, Division Dhamtari and Sub-Division Nagari, who died in 2 harness on 21.6.1998. He would further submit that Nitin Kumar Uikey (elder brother of petitioner) had filed application for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by respondents vide order dated 01.10.2001 (Annexure – P/2) on the ground that his mother is already in government employment. He further submitted that now his mother is suffering from ‘Cancer’ & she has retired also and elder brother of petitioner namely; Nitin Kumar Uikey has died on 06.9.2015, therefore, petitioner filed application on 06.10.2016 before the respondent No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure - P/1). Learned counsel further submitted that since his elder brother -Nitin Kumar Uikey has died and their mother has also retired and suffering from Cancer also, therefore, petitioner is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment, hence, it is prayed that instant petition may be admitted for hearing. 4. Learned State counsel, referring to its reply, would submit that at the time of death of father of the petitioner, Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 01.5.2000 (Annexure – R/2) was prevailing and Clause 1 of in-eligibility for grant of compassionate appointment provides that "यदि दिवंगत शासकीय सेवक के परिवा का कोई भी सस्य पूव से शासकीय सेवा अथवा दिगम, मंडल, परिष, आयोग आदि में दियोजि#त हो, तो उसके परिवा के दिकसी अन्य सस्य को अुकं पा दियुदि( हीं ी #ावेगी।" When Nitin Kumar Uikey, who was elder brother of petitioner, had filed application for compassionate appointment, his application was rejected vide Annexure -P/2 dated 01.10.2001 in view of aforesaid provision. She would further submit that subsequently, after 19 years, such compassionate appointment cannot be granted, as no right to grant compassionate appointment 3 exists in favour of the petitioner, hence petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. At the time of death of father of the petitioner, Chhattisgarh was part of the erstwhile State of M.P. and at that time, Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 01.5.2000 was prevailing and Clause 1 of the said policy deals with in-eligibility for grant of compassionate appointment, which provides that "यदि दिवंगत शासकीय सेवक के परिवा का कोई भी सस्य पूव से शासकीय सेवा अथवा दिगम, मंडल, परिष, आयोग आदि में दियोजि#त हो, तो उसके परिवा के दिकसी अन्य सस्य को अुकं पा दियुदि( हीं ी #ावेगी ।" It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at that time, mother of petitioner was already in government employment, as such, on this count, application filed by Nitin Kumar Uikey (elder brother of petitioner) was rejected vide Annexure-P/2 dated 01.10.2001. 7. 7. It is settled proposition of law that “compassionate appointment can only be given as per the policy of the employer and the appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out the general rule that recruitment in public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process”. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of many years, as has been happened in instant case as after about 19 years of death of father, petitioner has filed application for grant of compassionate appointment. 4 Moreover, he was ineligible also at that time for grant of compassionate appointment, as his mother was already in government employment. 8. In the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2000 (7) SCC 192, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years; and further that, compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 9. In instant case, since mother of petitioner was already in government employment and instant petition was filed by petitioner after about 19 years of death of his father, therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain instant petition, hence the same is dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.02.25 17:01:12 +0530