1 2025:CGHC:51188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4428 of 2021 Tribhuwan Kunjam, S/o Late Ghanshyam Kunjam, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Palewa, Post Shahwada, Thasil Charama, District Kanker C.G. Present Address - Ekta Nagar, Thelkabod, Post Govindpur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary / Upper Secretary Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, District Kanker, Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer, Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5 - Government Middle School Siltara, Block Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 14/10/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has 2 been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue commanding and directing the respondents to produce before this Hon’ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for its kind perusal. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashed the order dated 20.01.2021(Annexure P/1) as being arbitrary and illegal and further pleased to issue direction to the respondents to provide the compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the light of the circular of 2013. C. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may de4em fit in the facts & circumstances of case. D. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner namely Late Ghanshyam Kunjam, who was working as Upper Division Teacher at Government Middle School, Siltara, Block Kanker, District- Kanker (C.G.) died in harness on 18.06.2013, death certificate is filed as Annexure P-2. He further submits that the petitioner went to the respondent department and demanded the information about the compassionate appointment but the same has not been provided to him. Thereafter, with the help of his lawyer, he made an application for compassionate appointment dated 07.02.2014 before the respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/3). He submits that since the application filed by the petitioner has not been deicded decided by the respondent-Department, he filed a writ petition bearing WPS No. 2601/2020, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure P/4) directing that respondents authority to decide the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment according to the circular which was applicable / in force on the date of death of the petitioner’s father i.e. 3 18.06.2013 within a period of six months from the date of presentation of copy that order. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) dismissed the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment stating therein that as per sub-clause 2 of Clause 15 of the policy for compassionate appointment dated 14.06.2013, the said application has not been presented within the time limit as prescribed. He submits that family of the petitioner ought to have been informed about the details of the compassionate appointment within one month from the death of his father as per sub-clause 1 of Clause 15 of the said policy. Once the respondents have not complied with the provision of sub-clause 1 Clause 15 of the policy, they cannot dismissed the application of the petitioner being barred by limitation. Even otherwise, the instant petition has not been filed made much belatedly, rather it was filed only after about 8 months from the date of death of his father after obtaining the information about the compassionate appointment with the help of his lawyer. Therefore, impugned order may be set aside. 3. Per contra, Mr. Bareth, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents supported the impugned order and submits that as per Sub- clause 2 of Clause 15 of the Policy dated 14.6.2013, the application for compassionate appointment ought to have been made by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of death of father of the petitioner in a prescribed form, but as the petitioner could not make the application in due course of time, the said application was rejected. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 5. There is no dispute to the facts that the petitioner’s father, who was working as Upper Division Teacher with the respondents, has died in harness on 18.06.2013 and the petitioner being the dependent, had filed an application before the respondents authorities for compassionate appointment in prescribed formate on 07.02.2014 vide Annexure P-3. 6. For the controversy involved in this writ petition, it would be apt to quote sub-Clause 1 and 2 of Clause 15 of the Policy dated 14.06.2013, which is reproduced below :- Þ15- vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k%& ¼1½ fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds dk;kZy; izeq[k ;k fu;qfDrdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifjokj dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr laca/kh tkudkjh ,o a fu/kkZfjr vkosnu&i= dk izk:i ¼ifjf’k"V&,d½ ,d ekg dh vof/k esa miyC/k djk;k tk,xk rFkk ,slh tkudkjh dk;kZy; ds vfHkys[k esa lqjf{kr j[kh tk;sxhA ¼2½ vuqdEik fu;qfDr ,oa vkosnu ds izk:i laca/kh tkudkjh vkfJr ifjokj dks izkIr gksus ds mijkUr ik= o;Ld lnL; }kjk vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq fu/kkZjr izk:i esa vkosnu&i= 'kh?kzkfr’kh?kz vf/kdre rhu ekg ds Hkhrj ml dk;kZy; izeq[k dks izLrqr fd;k tk,xk] ftl dk;kZy; esa fnoxar 'kkldh; lsod viuh e`R;q ds iwoZ dk;Zjr FkkA dk;kZy; }kjk vkosnu&i= dh ikorh vkosnd dks nh tk,xhA Þ 7. Sub clause 1 and 2 of Clause 15 of the Police dated 14.06.2013 clearly stipulates that the respondents authorities were duty bound to provide the information for compassionate appointment alongwith necessary documents. The return filed by the Respondents-State does not reflect that as to when and how the said compliance of Sub-clause 1 and 2 of Clause 15 is made by the respondent. If the respondents themselves have not aware to the above said clause of policy dated they cannot now turned around and say that 5 application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot sustain and is liable to be and is hereby set aside. Thus, impugned order dated 20.01.2021 is set aside. The respondents authorities are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment without insisting the limitation period expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost (s). Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami/Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.16 17:04:17 +0530