1 2025:CGHC:45281 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9008 of 2025 1 - Chetna Nag D/o Lt. Shri Chatrapal Nag Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Ghatula, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Office of Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dantewada C.G. 2 - Deputy Collector, District South Bastar, Dantewada C.G. 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gidam, District Dantewada C.G. 4 - Deputy Director, District Office, Panchayat And Social Welfare, District Dantewada C.G. 5 - Joint Director (Administration), For- Commissioner, Panchayat And Social Welfare, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Ms. K. Radhika Advocate. For State : Shri SP Kale, Addl. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 04.09. 202 5 1. Challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 23.09.2024 whereby the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of delay in making claim for compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was employed as Gram Sahayak posted at Gram Panchayat Bhatpal. He died in harness on 05.07.1998. At the time of his death, the petitioner was stated to be only two years. The wife of deceased employee moved an application for compassionate appointment in the 2 year, 2000, however, she was told by the department that presently there is no vacancy of Class-IV employee in the said office and she will be informed in future if vacancy arises. She was not informed till 2006. Meanwhile, her daughter i.e. the petitioner attained the age of majority, therefore the wife of deceased gave NOC to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner on 16.08.2021 and thereafter the petitioner moved her representation on 17.05.2022 before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Dantewada as also before the Collector, Dantewada, however, vide letter impugned dated 23.09.2024 her claim was rejected on the ground of it being claimed after inordinate delay of 23 years. 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 died in the year 1998. Though, the wife of petitioner made her claim for compassionate appointed in the year 2000, however on account of non availability of Class-IV posts at that point of time her claim was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner kept mum for 20 years and gave NOC to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner on 16.08.2021 that too 5 years after attaining the majority of her daughter and only thereafter the petitioner moved her representation on 17.05.2022 before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Dantewada as also before the Collector, Dantewada, however, vide order impugned her claim was rejected on the ground of delay, which cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary. He would also submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable only on the ground of delay laches as cause of action 3 arose in the year 1998 whereas this petition has been filed after 27 years thereafter. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the employee died on 05.07.1998. The wife of deceased made her application for compassionate appointment on 28.07.2000, which was rejected on 03.10.2000 on the ground of non availability of Class-IV post in the department however it was also observed that her claim would be considered if Class-IV vacancy arises. Thereafter, she kept mum for almost 20 years and ultimately her daughter made a request to give her compassionate appointment along with NOC given by the wife of the deceased which was rejected vide order impugned holding that her claim cannot be considered after a lapse of 23 years from the date of death of deceased employee. It is not a case where a request was made to provide compassionate appointment to her daughter after her attaining the age of majority. This writ petition has been filed 27 years after the death of employee. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the writ petition suffers from delay laches though the petitioner had been periodically making representations to respondent in the year, 2000, 2021 and 2022. The reason why this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition is that if the applicants have survived for all these 27 years without compassionate appointment being granted, it gives a strong inference against the applicants that they had sufficient means to sustain themselves. 6. It is well settled that claim for 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 4 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 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 5 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 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. Thus, applying the aforesaid well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that no strong case is made out to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder