1 2025:CGHC:36313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7311 of 2025 1 - Kumari Ananti Toppo D/o Late Malar Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Indarpur, Post Bhitthikala, P.S. Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer, Block Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of the father of the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.27 18:57:24 +0530 2 petitioner late Malar Ram, who died in harness on 05.04.2015 and prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2016 and relevant portion of list (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent authorities, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide/pass an order on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary according to policy of the State Govt. within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. The disputed fact in the instant case is that, the father of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and has died on 05.04.2015. After death of the deceased employee, the petitioner has made her application for grant of compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), but her application for compassionate appointment was rejected on 11.06.2015 on the ground that the petitioner was not possessed the qualification of B.Ed. and T.E.T., which are the requisite qualification of Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the father of the petitioner has died in harness on 05.04.2015, and the petitioner had approached the authorities in the year 2015 itself, but she was denied compassionate appointment for the reason that she does not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher. He would further submit that there is a circular issued by the Zila Panchayat, 3 Surguja that if the dependent of the deceased employee does not possess the requisite qualification for Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), they may be given compassionate appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary and the concerned authorities shall forward the case for compassionate appointment after obtaining consent from the concerned. Therefore, even if the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for Assistant Teacher, she should be given compassionate appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary. Therefore, the petitioner may be allowed and she may be granted compassionate appointment as per the circular dated 18.01.2016. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes and submits that the father of the petitioner had died on 05.04.2015 and her application for compassionate appointment was rejected on 11.06.2015 on the ground that she does not possess the requisite qualification for Assistant Teacher. The subsequent policy came on 18.01.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the rejection of her application dated 11.06.2015 for about 10 years and she filed the present writ petition claiming the compassionate appointment, which is highly belated. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Undisputedly, the father of the petitioner died on 05.04.2015, while he was in service and the application for compassionate appointment to the petitioner has already been rejected on 11.06.2015. The employee 4 died in the year 2015, and the present writ petition is filed in the year 2025, which is about 10 years after the death of the employee. This Court, however, is of the opinion that the present petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches. 10 years is a considerable long period for making a claim for compassionate appointment. 7. The simple reason why this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition is that, if the petitioner could survive for these 10 years without the appointment being granted to her, it gives a strong inference against the petitioner that she had sufficient means to sustain herself. 8. Under the circumstances, exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 for considering the case of compassionate appointment after 10 years would open a Pandora box of those stale claim cases which have not been considered by the respondents till now or which have not been pressed by the respective claimants. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Another”, 2012 (9) SCC 545, has held as under: “8. It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another method of recruitment. As claim to be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased…………….” 5 10. The same view has further been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi”, 2013 (11) SCC 178. 11. The question of delay and laches also came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “State of Uttaranchal and Another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others” [2013 12 SCC 179] in which the Court has declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in case the petitioner invokes jurisdiction of court with inordinate delay, and held as under:- “23. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, 2007 (10) SCC 137, this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus:- 16…...filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.” 12. Further, in the case of Local Administration Department and Another Vs. M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, 2011 (13) SCC 42, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterating the principles relating to compassionate appointment has held as under:- “11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of 6 compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. 12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors.....” 13. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved