1 2025:CGHC:43421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6088 of 2021  Smt. Asha Devi W/o Shri Rupesh Kumar Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No.12, Nagar Panchayat, Deokar, Tehsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. District Education Officer Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26. 08.2025 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 entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned orders dated 31.08.2012 (ANNEXURE P/1) and 08.10.2021 (ANNEXURE P/2) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with the law. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.01 11:25:26 +0530 2 including cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely Shri Poosau Ram Dewangan, was working on the post of Assistant Teacher and he died in harness on 23.06.1999, leaving behind his wife and three minor daughters. The mother of the petitioner died prior to 2012. The petitioner, after attaining majority, moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment on 31.05.2012, which was rejected on 31.08.2012 on the ground that, according to the policy for compassionate appointment dated 10.06.2003, the application could have been moved within a period of three years from the date of death of the Government Servant. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities and moved a fresh application for the grant of compassionate appointment, and it was rejected vide order dated 08.10.2021 on the ground of delay. The petitioner has challenged both orders by filing the instant petition. 3. Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate, would submit that though the application for compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner on 31.05.2012, but it was moved according to the policy of 1994. He would contend that there was a clause permitting a minor dependent to move an application for the grant of compassionate appointment after attaining majority. He would further submit that the petitioner attained the majority in the year 2012, and immediately thereafter, she moved an application, whereas the respondent authorities rejected the application according to the policy for compassionate appointment dated 10.06.2003. He would further contend that the order passed in the year 2012 was never communicated to the petitioner. He would also contend that the petitioner has no source of income and that she was totally dependent on her father. He would also submit that the policy prevailing on the date of the death 3 would be relevant, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank vs. AjithKumar G.K., passed in Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025. He would refer to para 20 of the judgment, and the same is reproduced herein-below:- “20. Be that as it may, soon after the decision in Amit Shrivas (supra), there have been two decisions of coordinate benches of two-Judges in Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157. The latter, upon considering the decisions in Amit Shrivas (supra) and Promila (supra), expressed the view in paragraph 5 thus: “5. As per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.” 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, would submit that the father of the petitioner died on 23.06.1999, whereas the application for compassionate appointment was moved on 31.05.2012. He would further submit that, as the cause of action had arisen prior to the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner should have approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. He would also submit that, as the petitioner has already survived for a considerable period, the respondent authorities rightly rejected the application. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Mr. Sharma has argued that the father of the petitioner died on 23.06.1999, and at that time, the policy dated 10.06.1994 was in force, but the application for compassionate appointment was moved on 31.05.2012 after attaining the majority. In the year 2012, the policy of 1994 was not in force. 4 On 01.11.2000, the State of Chhattisgarh came into existence, and the application for the grant of compassionate appointment was moved before the authorities of the State of Chhattisgarh, whereas the father of the petitioner was an employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh; therefore, the said application was not tenable. Further, the petitioner has not arrayed the State of Madhya Pradesh as a party respondent. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who is at present aged about 31 years, has already survived for long 31 years without the compassionate appointment. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide the dependent family with immediate financial assistance to tide them over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such a family a post, much less a post held by the deceased. 8. 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 in 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 5 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." 9. The very object of providing the 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. 10. Considering the above-discussed facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the respondent authorities. 11. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant