1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 448 of 2023 Order Reserved on 07.11.2025 Order Delivered on 21.11.2025 1 - Vishnukant Harpal S/o Kusano Ram, Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. 61, Ward No. 3, Girsul, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Panchayat, Directorate, Ground Floor, Vikas Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Devbhog, District - 2 Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 6 - Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. For Respondents No. 3 & 5 :- Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1. The present petition is filed seeking quashment of the impugned Order No. /4430/Pancha/Anu.Niyukti/2022-23, Gariyaband, dated 12.09.2022, passed by the office of the Jila Panchayat, Gariyaband (C.G.), whereby the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that no application was received within the prescribed time-limit, and further praying for issuance of an appropriate direction to consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner’s mother, Smt. Mamta Bai Harpal, had duly submitted an application for compassionate appointment and release of ex-gratia amount to the Collector, Gariyaband, which was duly marked to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat on 01.05.2007, along with the death certificate of the 3 deceased employee. Thereafter, the authorities sought submission of the prescribed proforma, which was furnished on 19.09.2019. Subsequently, the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Gariyaband addressed a letter to the Director, Panchayat Directorate, Raipur on 28.11.2019, and later, on 17.06.2022, another communication was sent to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Devbhog. Despite these official correspondences acknowledging the pending claim, the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment was ultimately rejected on 12.09.2022 on the ground that no application had been submitted within the prescribed time-limit. The said ground is wholly untenable in view of the fact that the petitioner’s mother had already submitted the initial application on 03.05.2007, which was duly endorsed to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and the Joint Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Raipur, and was also diarized under Diary No. 7398 dated 04.05.2007. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.a. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by quashing Annexure P/6 passed by respondent no. 3 dated 12.09.2022 holding the application of petitioner as time barred in not looking Annexure P/2 filed by the mother of petitioner (since minor) to the Collector Raipur 4 respondent no. 6, therefore the application be treated within time and Annexure P/6 be quashed and direction to reconsider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment to the respondents be made within stipulated period. b. Cost of the petition be awarded and c. Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 4. Facts of the case is that the petitioner, whose date of birth as per Aadhar Card (Annexure P/1) is 05.09.1997, was a minor aged about 10 years when his father, late Kusanoram, died on 20.12.2006. Accordingly, his mother, Smt. Mamta Bai, submitted an application for compassionate appointment along with the death certificate on 30.04.2007, which was duly endorsed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, as well as the Joint Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Raipur on 03.05.2007 and was diarized as Diary No. 7398 dated 04.05.2007 (Annexure P/2). Since the application was filed within six months from the date of death, it was well within the prescribed time; however, as the petitioner was a minor, the case remained pending until he attained majority. Thereafter, upon being asked to submit the application in the prescribed proforma, the petitioner filed a fresh application on 19.09.2019 (Annexure P/3). The said application was forwarded by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat to the Director, Panchayat, Raipur on 28.11.2019 (Annexure P/4), and another communication was made to the 5 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Devbhog on 07.06.2022 (Annexure P/5). Despite the earlier timely application of 2007 being on record, the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on 12.09.2022 solely on the ground of delay (Annexure P/6), which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the factual record, as the petitioner’s mother had already filed the application within the prescribed period. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been illegally rejected vide Annexure P/6, despite the fact that his mother, Smt. Mamta Bai, had duly filed the initial application for compassionate appointment along with the death certificate on 30.04.2007, as evidenced from Annexure P/2, which was duly diarized under Diary No. 7398 dated 04.05.2007 by the Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, thereby conclusively establishing that the application was filed well within six months of the petitioner’s father’s death. Since the petitioner was a minor at that time and was running the family tree, the timely application filed by his mother cannot be treated as barred by limitation. Further, the application was appropriately submitted before the Collector, Raipur (respondent no. 6), as Gariyaband had not yet been constituted as a district in 2007; however, respondents, particularly respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4, failed to verify or trace the said timely application despite having communicated 6 inter se vide Annexure P/4 and Annexure P/5. Hence, the rejection order dated 12.09.2022 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. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay, as the cause of action first arose in the year 2006 on the death of the petitioner’s father, and neither the petitioner nor his legal representatives approached the competent authority or any judicial forum within a reasonable period. The object of compassionate appointment is only to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family after the sudden demise of the breadwinner; it is not a vested right, nor is it a mode of public employment. A claim made after a long lapse of time defeats the very purpose of the scheme and cannot be entertained. It is submitted that compassionate appointment can be granted only in accordance with the Compassionate Appointment Policy of the State Government, and the petitioner’s claim was duly considered and rejected by respondent No. 2, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, through a reasoned and speaking order (Annexure P/6). The State respondents are merely formal parties, and no specific relief has been sought against them. In view of the unexplained delay of nearly 17 years, absence of any subsisting cause of action, and the settled legal principles governing 7 compassionate appointments, the present petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for Respondents No.3 & 5 submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay, as the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court after nearly 17 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, during which period no plausible explanation has been offered. The deceased Panchayat Karmi died on 20.12.2006 when the governing Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995 contained no provision for compassionate appointment; the petitioner’s mother applied in 2007 but the same could not be considered due to absence of policy, and even after issuance of the 2013 Unified Instructions, the petitioner failed to submit the mandatory intimation within three months as required under Clause-15. The petitioner’s application was duly considered and rejected by the competent committee on 30.06.2020, and the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 rightly held him ineligible, as the claim was filed after an abnormal delay of 13 years, defeating the very object of compassionate appointment meant to provide immediate financial relief. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Corporation v. K. Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322, Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa (2010) 12 SCC 471 and State of J&K v. R.K. Zalpuri (2015) 15 SCC 602, as well as the Division Bench judgment in Brinda 8 Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh in WA No.313/2025, wherein belated claims for compassionate appointment have been rejected, and therefore the present petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From the perusal of the record, it appears that within one year of the death of the deceased employee, his widow had already submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment. The said application was neither considered nor decided by the authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner, who was a minor at the relevant time, filed an application for compassionate appointment upon attaining majority and within a reasonable period of three years. The petitioner’s application is required to be considered along with the application submitted earlier by his mother, which was filed well within the prescribed time. Since the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of the deceased employee, he could not have filed any application on her own, and inasmuch as his mother’s application was also not decided, the petitioner’s application cannot be held to be barred by limitation. The circulars issued subsequently also do not disentitle the petitioner from seeking compassionate appointment. 10. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the fact that the petitioner’s application has been rejected solely on the ground 9 that it was filed after a delay of 13 years, this Court is of the considered view that the said ground is wholly unsustainable, as the petitioner’s mother had already submitted an application on 30.07.2007, i.e., within one year of the death of the deceased employee. The delay, therefore, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the reason assigned for dismissal of the petitioner’s application is not in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and decide the pending application for compassionate appointment within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. As a result, the writ petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 07.11.2025 21.11.2025 21.11.2025 21.11.2025