1 2025:CGHC:7048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6268 of 2018  Shiv Kumar S/o S/o Late Bhagela Ram Aged About 19 Years (Now) R/o Goushala Para Ward No. 03 Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, P. S. Rakhi District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Janjgir Champa, Collector Office Janjgir Champa Post Janjgir District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. The Superintendent Executive Engineer Office At Public Health Engineering Department Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Executive Engineer Office At Public Health Engineering Department Division Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Puja Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07. 02.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner 2 from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quashed the order dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no.3, as against the natural justice. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondents-authorities to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the regular post. 10.4 Any other relief may kindly be pleased granted as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.5 Cost of the petition.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner namely, Bhagela Ram was posted in the office of respondent No. 4 as Grade IV employee. He died in harness on 23.08.2008. An affidavit was filed by the mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Jamuna Bai to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application on 05.04.2018 for the grant of compassionate appointment. The respondent authorities vide order dated 05.07.2018 rejected the application on the following grounds :- i. On the date of the death of the Late Bhagela Ram, the petitioner was a minor. ii. On 27.04.2016, the mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Jamuna Bai also passed away. iii. The application for the compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner on 05.04.2018 after 10 years from the date of the death of his father, whereas according to the policy, the application was to be moved within a period of 3 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities ought to have considered the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment taking a lenient view. She would further submit 3 that at the time of the death of Late Bhagela Ram, the petitioner was a minor and after attaining the majority, he moved the application. She would pray to quash the order dated 05.07.2018. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. He would submit that the application for the compassionate appointment was not moved within the prescribed period. He would further submit that after more than 9 years, the application was moved by the petitioner after attaining the majority. He would also submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. As the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment after more than 9 years; particularly, after attaining the majority and according to policy, the maximum period provided to move an application for the compassionate appointment was 3 years to 5 years. As the petitioner could not move the application and survived for more than 10 years; in the opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities rightly rejected the application of the petitioner; thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 05.07.2018. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No. cost(s).S Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant