1 2025:CGHC:3589-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 27 of 2025 Arvind Kumar S/o Late Ghulu Ram Aged About 21 Years Caste Kanwar R/o Bakaspur, Police Station Bhulsi, Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs , Ministry at Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General of Police Police Headquarter, Near Mantralaya, Sector 19, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Inspector General of Police Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent of Police Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanuganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Jaiprakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Jaiprakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State / respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.21 17:56:08 +0530 2 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.4026 of 2022 (Arvind Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the writ petitioner by way of WPS No. 4026 of 2022 has challenged the order dated 19.04.2021, whereby in pursuance of the Departmental Internal Communication dated 23.02.2022, claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of delay in filing application for compassionate appointment. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of petitioner used to work as Informer (Mukhbir) for Balrampur Police. He used to transmit naxal activity information to the police. Upon knowing this fact by the naxals, he was killed by naxalite on 04.10.2004. Under the Government Scheme, elder brother of petitioner namely Ashok Kumar Paikara was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Constable (GD). Brother of petitioner died in harness on 01.01.2014. Thereafter, mother of petitioner was not interested to get compassionate appointment for herself for the reasons best known to her, however, she requested for granting compassionate 3 appointment for the petitioner. At that relevant point of time, petitioner was minor aged about 12 years and he was advised by the department to make application on attaining the age of majority ie., 18 years. Petitioner after attaining age of majority made an application for compassionate appointment with supportive documents on 06.02.2021 which was rejected vide impugned order dated 19.04.2021 on the ground that the application is submitted beyond the period prescribed for considering the claim. Learned counsel for petitioner referred the Circular dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Director General of Police, Raipur Chhattisgarh, and would submit that in the said Circular there is provision for compassionate appointment of child-constable in case the dependent of the deceased employee is minor during time of death. Petitioner ought to have been appointed as child-constable in the year 2014 when his brother died in harness which was not done by the respondent- Department even after existence of aforesaid Circular dated 07.05.2011 and rejected the claim/ application of petitioner in arbitrary and illegal manner. The respondent-Department never suggested to make the application within three year or within five years, however, petitioner was asked to make application after attaining age of majority. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that elder brother of the petitioner namely late Ashok Kumar Paikara was granted 4 compassionate appointment vide order dated 14.02.2011 under the Scheme of the State Government on account of death of his father during naxal attack. Elder brother of petitioner died in harness on 01.01.2014. After death of deceased employee, no application for grant of compassionate appointment has been made by any dependent family member of the deceased employee. At the relevant point of time petitioner was minor aged about 12 years, no such application nor any communication in this regard was made by the mother of petitioner. After attaining the age of majority, petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his brother, which has been processed by the respondent-Department and the same has been rejected in view of the Circular dated 14.06.2013 issued by the General Administrative Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh which provides that the application for grant of compassionate appointment be submitted within 03 years in general condition and in special circumstances it should be made within 05 years from the date of death of deceased employee, however, petitioner has submitted application after a delay of 07 years, which has rightly been rejected vide impugned letter dated 19.04.2021. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in rejecting the claim of petitioner. Learned State counsel further submitted that as per the circular dated 07.05.2011, referred by the learned counsel for petitioner, the ground of compassionate appointment is given to the minor child of the deceased employee. Petitioner being the 5 brother of deceased employee is not covered under the said circular. Further, in lieu of the death of father, deceased was given compassionate appointment who died during training period by committing suicide and his services were never regularized. 5. The learned Single, after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, perusing the documents placed on record and relying upon various judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard, has dismissed the said writ petition vide impugned order dated 18.11.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition without appreciating the facts, ground and evidences taken in the writ petition, as such has committed grave illegality and arbitrariness. In operative para, reason assigned behind dismissing the writ petition, is policy for compassionate appointment framed by State does not support petitioner's claim is false. Circular dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure P/4) which is in form of policy support the claim of petitioner so Hon'ble Single Judge was not justified in holding that policy of State Government does not support petitioner's claim. So far as policy dated 14.06.2013 referring which petition has been dismissed, it is submitted that this policy dated 14.06.2013 is general in nature which applies in routine course however case of the petitioner is of specific nature for which circular dated 07.05.2011 is applicable and policy dated 14.06.2013 will not 6 apply in his case, as such Hon'ble single bench was not justified in dismissing the writ petition relying solely on circular dated 14.06.2013. He also submitted that the respondent authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner asserting the reason of delay in making application. It is stated by them that normally the application for compassionate appointment should be made within three years however it could be done within five years in specific circumstances. This is not a case of ordinary situation, rather it is a case of children who had not attained majority during time of death of his brother, and in this situation the specific circular under existence is department would be applicable on him. 7. On the other hand, learned Stated counsel opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that as per the circular dated 07.05.2011, referred by the learned counsel for petitioner, the ground of compassionate appointment is given to the minor child of the deceased employee. Petitioner being the brother of deceased employee is not covered under the said circular. Further, in lieu of 7 the death of father, deceased (i.e. brother of the petitioner, namely late Ashok Kumar Paikra) was already given compassionate appointment who died during training period by committing suicide and his services were never regularized. It further transpires that after attaining the age of majority, petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his brother, which has been processed by the respondent- Department and the same has been rejected in view of the Circular dated 14.06.2013 issued by the General Administrative Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh which provides that the application for grant of compassionate appointment be submitted within 03 years in general condition and in special circumstances it should be made within 05 years from the date of death of deceased employee, however, petitioner has submitted application after a delay of 07 years, which has rightly been rejected vide impugned letter dated 19.04.2021 and as such, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra