1 2025:CGHC:52379-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 763 of 2025 Smt. Asha Devi W/o Shri Rupesh Kumar Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat, Deokar, Tehsil - Saja, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education O.cer Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant :Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents/State :Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.28 18:12:58 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.10.2025 1. Heard Shri Basant Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant Also heard Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6088/2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely Shri Poosau Ram Dewangan, was working on the post of Assistant Teacher and he died in harness on 23.06.1999, leaving behind his wife and three minor daughters. The mother of the petitioner died prior to 2012. The petitioner, after attaining majority, moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment on 31.05.2012, which was rejected on 31.08.2012 on the ground that, according to the policy for compassionate appointment dated 10.06.2003, the application could have been moved within a period of three years from the date of death of the Government Servant. The petitioner approached the 3 respondent authorities and moved a fresh application for the grant of compassionate appointment, and it was rejected vide order dated 08.10.2021 on the ground of delay. The petitioner has challenged both orders by 9ling the WPS No. 6088/2021. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who is at present aged about 31 years, has already survived for long 31 years without the compassionate appointment. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide the dependent family with immediate financial assistance to tide them over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such a family a post, much less a post held by the deceased. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 471, held in paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under:- "7. 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 4 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 dependents 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. 7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee. 8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable." 9. The very object of providing the compassionate appointment is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time, and the same has been achieved as the family has already survived for such a long period. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that the compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate 5 financial assistance to families who have experienced a sudden hardship. 10. Considering the above-discussed facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the respondent authorities. 11. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. No cost(s). ” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the petitioner had moved an application for compassionate appointment on 31.05.2012 immediately after attaining the age of majority, in accordance with the prevailing policy of 1994, which speci9cally permitted a minor dependent to apply upon attaining majority. However, the respondent authorities erroneously rejected the application by applying the subsequent policy dated 10.06.2003, which was not applicable to the petitioner’s case. The order of rejection passed in 2012 was never communicated to the petitioner, who was entirely dependent upon her deceased father and has no source of income. It is further submitted that as per the settled law laid 6 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Ajith Kumar G.K., Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025, and reiterated in Indian Bank v. Promila (2020) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157, the policy prevailing at the time of the death of the deceased employee alone is relevant for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. The Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this settled legal position and ignored the applicability of the 1994 circular, which was in force when the petitioner’s father died in harness. Even in the reply 9led by the State before the Learned Single Judge, reliance was erroneously placed upon a subsequent circular, thereby leading to the wrongful rejection of the petitioner’s legitimate claim. Hence, the appellants seek setting aside of the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State oppose the submission of appellant and would submit that the father of the petitioner died on 23.06.1999, whereas the application for compassionate appointment was moved on 31.05.2012. He would further submit that as the cause of action had arisen prior to the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner should have approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. He would also submit that, as the petitioner has already survived for a 7 considerable period, the respondent authorities rightly rejected the application. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court 9nds no in9rmity, illegality, or perversity in the order passed by the Learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present appeal. The Learned Single Judge has rightly held, relying upon the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra & Another v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, AIR Online 2022 SC 471, that the very object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate 9nancial relief to the bereaved family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of the employee, and not to give employment as a matter of right after lapse of several years. In the present case, the petitioner, who is now aged about 31 years, has admittedly survived for a long period without any compassionate appointment, and therefore, the very purpose of such appointment stands frustrated. The claim raised after such an inordinate delay cannot be entertained merely on sympathetic 8 considerations, as compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and must be strictly construed. The Learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the factual and legal position and dismissed the writ petition assigning valid reasons. This Court 9nds itself in full agreement with the view taken and does not 9nd any ground to interfere with the impugned order. 9. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suAers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we 9nd that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib