1 2025:CGHC:47349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10187 of 2025 • Smt. Jayanti Chauhan D/o Late Shri Bihari Lal Chauhan W/o Tejram Chauhan Aged About 37 Years R/o Dipapara Tilgi, Tehsil Pusaur, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Medical And Health Officer District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Deputy Director Directorate Of Health Service District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order Sheet 15/09/2025 1. The petitioner who is daughter of the deceased namely Bihakri Lal Chaiuhan who was working as Compounder in the Primary Health Centre, Lamdand, Vikas Khand Lailunga, District Raigarh died in harness, has filed the instant writ petition assailing the order dated 18- 6-2025 by which representation of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been dismissed on account of delay and latches as there was delay of 27 years and 7 months in preferring of the petition. 2 2. The brief facts reflected from the petition are that the father of the petitioner late Biharilal Chauhan was working as Compounder in Primary Health Centre, Vikas Khand Lailunga District Raigarh died in harness on 1-11-1997 and thereafter they have submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 1-4-2024 ie.,, after lapse of 27 years and seven months and the same has been rejected by the respondent authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the petitioner's brother had moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment but due to certain medical disability he had left the house and thereafter, the petitioner who is daughter of the deceased has moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment which has been rejected by the respondent authority on account of delay and latches. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submissions would submit that the application for grant of compassionate appointment was filed before the respondent authority after lapse of 27 years and 7 months and even the petitioner who was already married woman, has filed the application for compassionate appointment, therefore, the dependency difficulty faced by them on account of unfortunate death of bread earner has already been over and they have survived for 27 years and 7 months, therefore, the application for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondent authority and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 1-11-1997 while he was in service and after lapse of 27 years and 7 months, the petitioner has moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment which has rightly been rejected by the respondent authority on the ground of delay and latches and even the issue of delay and latches has already been considered by the even the issue of delay and latches has already been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canera Bank vs. Ajith Kumar G.K. (C.A.No.255 of 2025, reported in 2025 INSC 1984) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the scheme of compassionate appointment and in light of fact that the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been submitted after lapse of 27 years and 7 months and since then they have survived and there is inordinate delay in submitting the application, therefore, the very object of compassionate appointment has already been achieved. 7. Considering all the aspects of the matter, I do not find any illegality or perversity in rejecting the application. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.09.17 11:48:07 +0530