2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 2438 of 2021 Yash Agrawal, S/o Late Amit Prakash Agrawal, aged about 19 Years, R/o C/o Smt. Saroj Agrawal, Shyam Nagar, Street No. 02, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director General Prisons (Jail) And Correctional Services, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. . Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 23/09/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief : 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2021(Annexure P-6); 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction and direct the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment; 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate; 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given. 2. Facts of the case which emerges from the pleadings are that the petitioner’s father was working on the post of Vehicle Driver with respondent No.2 and died in harness on 04/06/2011. At the time of his death the petitioner was about 10 years old. Prior to ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.09 17:24:50 +0530 -2- death of petitioner’s father, his mother has left him and his father. After death of his father, the Court of Upper Collector, Raipur (C.G.) appointed his Grand Mother Smt. Saroj Agrawal as his guardian and was entrusted with the custody of the petitioner to look after him. The said order was passed on 01/02/2012 (Annexure P- 2). On 28/08/2015, petitioner’s aunt submitted an application for companionate appointment. However, the same was rejected on 20/11/2015 by respondent No.2 holding that the petitioner is minor and is not entitled for compassionate appointment (Annexure P-4). Later on, the petitioner attained the age of majority on 31/01/2019 and thereafter another application for grant of compassionate appointment was submitted by the grand mother of the petitioner on 04/12/2020 (Annexure P-5) which was rejected by the impugned 19/02/2021 by the respondent No. (Annexure P-6) which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and he was given in guardianship of his grand mother by an order of the Upper Collector and an application was already moved at the time when he was minor for compassionate appointment which was rejected as the petitioner was not entitle for companionate appointment. Later on, on attaining the majority another application was filed for compassionate appointment which was illegally rejected relying on the policy for compassionate appointment by the State dated 14/06/2013. He submits that the right of the petitioner accrued for compassionate appointment only after he attained majority. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the state submits that the Policy for compassionate appointment in Clause – 16 provides that under normal circumstances the limitation for appointment on compassionate ground would be 03 years and under special circumstances 05 years. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died on 04/06/2011 and the application was moved in the year-2020 which is beyond the limitation period as prescribed under clause-16 of the policy for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the impugned order is legal and cannot be interfered in the writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner survived for so many years, therefore there is no need of compassionate appointment. -3- 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended record. 6. In order to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties it would be necessary to rely upon the policy of the companionate appointment dated 14/06/2013. According to Clause - 16 of this Policy, the period of limitation is 03 years in normal circumstances and 05 years in exceptional circumstances. There is no dispute to the fact that at the time of death of petitioner’s father, he was a minor and the mother also left and he was given in guardianship to her grand mother by order of Upper Collector. It is also not in dispute that initially at the time when petitioner was minor, the aunt of the petitioner made an application which was rejected stating that the petitioner was not entitled to get the compassionate appointment. The petitioner attained majority on 31/01/2019 and thereafter only he became eligible for getting the benefit of compassionate appointment in light of Policy dated 14/06/2013. 7. Perusal of the Policy also indicates that according to clause 15(1) and 15 (4) after the death of the employee, it is the duty of the employer to provide the application and necessary information within one month for compassionate appointment to the dependent family members of the deceased / employee. It is also the duty of the employer that in case if there is no eligible major member in the family, the said information shall be intimated to the head of department without any further delay and copy of the same to be delivered to the head of the family. For ready reference Clause 15 (1) and 15(4) are quoted here-in-below:- “15(1) दिवंगत शासकीय स वंकी की कीयलय प्रमुख य नियक्तितकीत अधिकीरी द्वारी दिवंगत शासकीय स वंकी की आश्रि त परिरीवंरी की# अकीम्पा नियक्तित सबं जाकीरी एवं निरिरीत आवं - पत्र की प्ररूप (परिरीशिशाष्ट- एकी) एकी मुह की अवंधि मु- उपलब्ध कीरीय जाएग तथा ऐस जाकीरी कीयलय की अश्रि2ल ख मु- सरीश्रि3त रीख जाय ग । 15(4) परिरीवंरी मु- अकीम्पा नियक्तित की शिलए की#ई पत्र वंयस्की सस्य ह# परी सबंधित कीयलय प्रमुख द्वारी तशाय की स7च निवं2गध्य3 कीयलय की# अनिवंलबं : जाएग एवं त;सबं पत्र की प्रनितशिलनिप परिरीवंरी की ” मुखिखय की# : जाय ग । -4- 8. The reply of the State Government does not reflect as to whether such compliance of clause 15(1) and 15(4) was made by the State intimating the Family members with regard to information and application for compassionate appointment. If the employer/State failed to perform its own obligation in light of clauses of the policy as stated above, it cannot take a somersault salt to say that the application for compassionate appointment was made belatedly. Apart from this this court is conscious of the fact that, the petitioner was minor and he attained the majority on 31/01/2019 and his right to be considered for compassionate appointment accrued after only he attained the age of the majority. In case in hand, the respondents are playing hot and cold at the same time. Initially application of petitioner was rejected treating it to be minor and later on his subsequent application was rejected treating it to be barred by limitation. Therefore in light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order (Annexure P-4) cannot sustain and it is hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Petition thus allowed. 10. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish