1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2939 of 2023 1 - Karn Kumar Dhruwe S/o Late Shri Ganga Prasad Dhruwe Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Jevra, Post Kukusada, Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Horticulture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Horticulture And Prakshey Vaniki, Second Khand Fourth Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisagarh. 3 - Assistant Director Horticulture Department, Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Korea, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Ms. Mahima Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14.11.2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and proprietary of the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby rejected the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the basis of not filed application in proper time. Copy of impugned order dated 28.02.2022 is being filed herewith as Annexure P-1. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside impugned orderdated 28.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and decide/pass an order for appointment on the compassionate basis in the light of Annexure P-8 within stipulate time according to law at looking to the problem of survival the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3 (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, Late Shri Ganga Prasad Dhruw, was working as Assistant Grade-II in the Horticulture Department, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, and he died in harness on 30.12.2007, leaving behind three sons—Karn Kumar Dhruwe (petitioner), Vijay Singh (who expired on 06.12.2016), and Suresh Singh. That, after the death of the petitioner’s father, the family fell into sudden financial crisis as all the family members were entirely dependent upon the deceased employee. In order to overcome the financial hardship, the petitioner’s brother Vijay Kumar Dhruwe had initially submitted an application for compassionate appointment before Respondent No. 3 along with an executed affidavit and consent letters of his brothers, and had also approached the department several times in this regard. However, Vijay Kumar Dhruwe was suffering from cancer for a long time and ultimately passed away on 06.12.2016. That, thereafter, the petitioner submitted his own application for compassionate appointment and repeatedly approached Respondent No. 3 requesting early consideration of his claim. Despite this, Respondent No. 3 has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground of delay, stating that it was not filed within the stipulated time, which is contrary to the circulars issued by the State Government. 4 Hence, by way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a limited prayer for directing the respondent authorities to reconsider his claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with his qualifications, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the compassionate appointment policy of the State Government, as the petitioner’s claim has been rejected on an erroneous premise of delay despite the fact that the petitioner’s brother had initially applied within time and could not pursue the matter due to prolonged illness from cancer, ultimately resulting in his death, whereafter the petitioner promptly applied with proper consent and supporting documents; it is contended that the petitioner’s family has been continuously facing severe financial distress since the death of the petitioner’s father in 2007, and the petitioner, being unemployed and having no source of livelihood, squarely falls within the zone of consideration under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme; that the respondents have failed to appreciate that non- consideration of the petitioner’s legitimate claim despite clear eligibility amounts to continuing legal injury and is in violation of State Government circulars as well as settled law, particularly when similarly situated candidates, including in the cases of Smt. Sulochana Netam and Rakesh Kumar Verma, have been granted relief by this Hon’ble Court; accordingly, the impugned rejection 5 deserves to be quashed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with law and the applicable policy. Hence, the rejection order dated 28.02.2022 is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the record, and liable to be set aside with a direction to reconsider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment in accordance with and the present petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent–State submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed, as the petitioner’s application is barred by limitation. It is contended that under the existing policy of the State Government, an application for compassionate appointment can be submitted only within three years, and at the most within five years, from the date of death of the employee. Since the petitioner’s application was filed beyond the permissible period, it was not eligible for consideration. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a bare perusal of the record as well as the impugned order, it appears that within three years of the death of the deceased employee, his brother had submitted an application for compassionate appointment. Although the said application was not submitted in the prescribed format and was instead filed on plain paper, the fact remains that an application was indeed filed within the stipulated period. The authorities did not process that 6 application nor did they direct the applicant to furnish the same in the prescribed form. Therefore, the contention of the respondent authorities that no application was filed within time cannot be accepted. 8. Considering the fact that after the death of the deceased late Ganga Ram, an application was submitted by his brother within the permissible period but was rejected merely on the ground that it was not in the prescribed format, the subsequent application filed by the present petitioner, including the application dated 27.01.2022, cannot be treated as barred by limitation. The petitioner’s application is liable to be considered along with the earlier application dated 22.06.2010, which was within time and ought to have been duly processed. Since the death occurred on 30.12.2007, the earlier application dated 22.06.2010 was within the permissible period under the applicable policy. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s application dated 22.06.2010 along with the subsequent application dated 01.07.2022, keeping in view that the earlier application was filed within the prescribed time. The respondents shall consider the petitioner’s case in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case any deficiency in the prescribed format or documents persists, the respondents shall duly inform the petitioner and provide an opportunity to cure such defects. 7 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha