1 2025:CGHC:280-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 873 of 2024 Saraswati Kosre D/o Late Chinsingh Kosre Aged About 35 Years Occupation Unemployed R/o Changora Bazar Chowk Beside Vijay Jewelers, Changorabhata P.S. D.D. Nagar, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of School Education New Mantralaya,mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The District Education OfÏcer Department of School Education Raipur Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Principal Government Higher Secondary School Mana Camp, Raipur Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.04 11:08:50 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2090 of 2015 (Saraswati Kosre vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the daughter and one of the family members of deceased Late Chain Singh Kosre, who expired on 24.11.2004, leaving behind his widow and children. Late Chain Singh Kosre had been working and rendering his services as Peon / Chowkidar in the Government Higher Secondary School, Mana Camp, Raipur under the control of the respondents. He also submits that with the consent of widow and other legal heirs of deceased Chain Singh Kosre, appellant / writ petitioner being daughter has moved an application for compassionate appointment to the Department in place of her father on 23.03.2015, along with relevant certificates and testimonials, but the Department is absolutely unjustified in not 3 considering the appellant’s application for grant of compassionate appointment and, thereafter, the appellant had moved a writ petition bearing WPS No. 2090 of 2015 before this Court for a direction to the respondents to provide her compassionate appointment in lieu of demise of her father, who was working as Peon / Chowkidar in the Government Higher Secondary School, Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.). 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the WPS No. 2090 of 2015 came up before this Court for hearing and the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 12.11.2024, rejected the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is filing instant writ appeal. He also submits that the learned Single Judge, while rejecting the writ petition of the appellant had committed gross illegality that the legal heir of the deceased, namely, Tulsiram Kosrre, had made an application for compassionate appointment within six months of death of Chain Singh Kosre, but the authorities who had kept their application pending without showing any reason. Thereafter, the present appellant had moved application for grant of compassionate appointment before the authorities and before this Court in the year 2015, hence, the purpose and object of the compassionate appointment is still subsists. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that the appellant’s 4 application for grant of compassionate appointment is barred by limitation as per applicable circular dated 02.02.2006 and, therefore, the same has rightly not been considered. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant’s father while working on the post of Peon died in harness on 24.11.2004 and at that time, the appellant was minor. However, when the appellant attained majority in the year 2007, she ought to have filed application for grant of compassionate appointment promptly, but she did not do so and filed the same on 23.03.2015 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition). Whereas, as per applicable policy dated 02.02.2006, the application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be filed within a period of six months from the date of death of employee. 8. In the return filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition, it has been stated at paragraph 09 that as per Clause 3(g) of applicable circular dated 02.02.2006, the application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be filed within a period of six months from the date of death of employee and the application filed after the prescribed time period is not to be considered. However, the appellant herein has filed her application for grant of compassionate appointment after a delay of 11 long years, as such, her application could not be considered. 9. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order held that since the appellant’s father died on 24.11.2004 and the appellant has been able to survive till date and has maintained her family during the said 5 period, therefore, at this stage, no purpose would be served in granting compassionate appointment. The very object of granting compassionate appointment is to give immediate aid to the family in distress, so that the family may not suffer agony of starvation, which in the present case no longer subsists for the reason that the appellant and her family have been able to maintain themselves for such a long period (i.e. from 24.11.2004 till date). 10. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan