1 2025:CGHC:53759-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 786 of 2025 Ankit Kumar Navik S/o Late Harikishan Navik Aged About 28 Years R/o M-10, Shriram Park, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Chief Medical And Health O2cer, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara C.G. 4 - The Block Medical O2cer, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.07 11:54:56 +0530 2 For Appellant : Shri Gaurav Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04/11/2025 1. Heard Shri Gaurav Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant Also heard Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7513/2025, 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. Brief facts as projected by the appellant is that the appellant is the son of Late Shri Harikishan Navik, who was serving as a Radiographer at the Community Health Center, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh), and died in harness on 3 07.11.2011 while in government service. At the time of his father’s death, the appellant was a minor aged 15 years and 8 months, and his mother, Smt. Shail Navik, was already employed in government service and receiving family pension. After attaining the age of majority and acquiring the requisite educational quali>cations, the appellant submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 20.01.2015 to the Block Medical O2cer, CHC Baloda Bazar. However, the Chief Medical and Health O2cer, by letter dated 27.06.2015, rejected the application on the ground that it was not submitted within six months from the date of death of the government servant, and treated it as “archived.” The appellant and his mother again applied for compassionate appointment on 28.09.2018, but the request was not entertained and was again rejected on the same ground. The appellant contends that as per the Government Instructions dated 10.06.2003 and 14.06.2013, the Head of O2ce was duty- bound to provide the prescribed application form and guidance to the deceased employee’s family within one month of death, which was not done in this case. It is further submitted that the rejection on technical grounds is arbitrary, 4 since the appellant, being a minor at the relevant time, applied immediately upon becoming eligible. The department’s failure to follow the mandatory procedural instructions deprived him of his rightful consideration for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the rejection orders dated 27.06.2015 and 28.09.2018, the appellant >led Writ Petition (S) No. 7513 of 2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 30.07.2025, holding that the application suFered from inordinate delay. Hence, this writ appeal has been preferred. 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:- “xxx xxx xxx 5. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner is died on 07- 11-2011, the petitioner made his application for compassionate appointment on 20- 01-2015, which was rejected on 27-06-2015 on the ground of delay in making application for compassionate appointment. The subsequent application for compassionate appointment was also rejected on 28- 09-2018. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed on 26-06- 2015. It is also not disputed that the petitioner's 5 mother was in government employment. 6. It is well settled that claim of the compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the concerned employee. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as the compassionate appointment is made to enable the family to tide over the crisis which is caused as the result of death of an employee in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. This view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, reported in 2019(6) SCC 774 and Indian Bank & Ors Vs. Promila & Anr reported in 2020 (2) SCC 729 and it has also been held that though the Court has sympathy with the family members of the deceased, who face the death of the deceased, but sympathy alone cannot be the basis for granting remedy to such family members and it is not for the Courts to substitute a scheme, to add or subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Anusree 6 K.B.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331 held as under: "18. 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 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 dependants 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. 19. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground 7 is provided, the Respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the Respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon: (2021) 16 SCC 384 held as under: "8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the 8 family (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana: (1994) 4 SCC 138). It was further observed in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period, as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 9. In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the facts of the present case and further keeping in mind the delay, and applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred herein above and on perusal of the contents of this petition, this Court reaches to the conclusion that the Petitioner has no vested right to claim compassionate appointment as per the policy formulated by the State and no writ of mandamus can be issued after prolonged delay since the death of the concerned employee. 9 10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant petition stands dismissed." 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to law. It is contended that the appellant’s father died in harness on 07.11.2011, when the appellant was a minor aged about 15 years, and therefore could not have applied within the stipulated period. Upon attaining majority and acquiring the requisite quali>cation, he applied on 20.01.2015, but his claim was rejected solely on the ground of delay, ignoring that under the prevailing policy dated 10.06.2003, no such limitation was prescribed. It is argued that the department failed to perform its mandatory duty under government instructions dated 10.06.2003 and 14.06.2013 to provide the application form and guidance within one month of the employee’s death. The rejection, therefore, violates the principles laid down in Balbir Kaur v. SAIL (2000) 6 SCC 493 and Bheemesh v. State of Karnataka (2021) 20 SCC 707, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment must be considered as per the 10 policy in force at the time of death and interpreted bene>cially to support the bereaved family. It is further urged that the appellant’s minority status and departmental lapses were ignored, rendering the order violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission made by counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant and contended that that the father of the petitioner had died in the year 2011 and he made his application in the year 2015, which is beyond the period prescribed in the compassionate appointment policy of the state government. The subsequent application for compassionate appointment is rejected in the year 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner >led the petition in the year 2025, which is after about a lapse of 07 years. He would also submit that the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was decided by the authorities as per the existing policy for the same prevailing on the date of death of the government servant, i.e. 2011. Therefore, the petitioner is suFered from delay and laches and no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. He 11 would also submit that, though, the compassionate appointment policy of 2013 is not applicable in the case, however, in view of the pleading made in para 8.3 of the petition that the mother of the petitioner was already in government service, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and warrants no interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. It is an undisputed fact that the father of the appellant died on 07.11.2011, whereas the application for compassionate appointment was made only on 20.01.2015, after a lapse of more than three years, which was rejected on 27.06.2015 on the ground of delay. The subsequent representation dated 28.09.2018 was also rejected. It is also not in dispute that the appellant’s mother was in government service and is drawing family pension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Nirval Singh (2019) 6 SCC 774, Indian Bank v. Promila (2020) 2 SCC 729, Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. Anusree K.B. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 12 1331), and Central Coal2elds Ltd. v. Parden Oraon (2021) 16 SCC 384, has consistently held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after lapse of a considerable period from the date of death of the employee, as its object is to provide immediate succour to the family in >nancial distress. 9. In the matter of State of H.P. And Others v. Rajesh Kumar (2001) 9 SCC 174 and SAIL and Another v. Awadesh Singh and Others (2001) 10 SCC 621, the Supreme Court has held that when one member of family is already in service, rejection of prayer for compassionate appointment is justi>ed. 10.The Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India and others v. Bhagwan Singh (1995) 6 SCC 476, Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar and another (1996) 1 SCC 301, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another (1996) 8 SCC 23 Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh (1997) 8 SCC 85, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another (2004) 12 SCC 487 and State of U.P. and others v. Ram Sukhi Devi (2005) 9 SCC 733 has held that the grant of compassionate appointment after long time or after attaining the age of majority is not permissible. 13 11. It is the well-settled proposition of law that the compassionate ground appointments are not intended to create a windfall for the kin of the deceased. The employer is only required to assess the >nancial condition which keeps the kitchen >re burning. 12. Applying the said settled legal principles to the facts of the present case, this Court >nds no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The delay in >ling the application defeats the very object of the scheme, and no case for interference is made out. 13. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib