1 2025:CGHC:56230-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 834 of 2025 Ku. Himmani Dhaneliya D/o Late Ramji Ram Dhaneliya Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Bhaisasur, Block and Tahsil Antagarh, District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Education Ministry, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Department of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Secretary Department of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Director Directorate of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh, Indravati Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 6 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare, Distt North Basar Kanker Chhattisgarh 7 - District Education Officer North Basar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19 . 11 .202 5 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 1. Heard Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for State/respondents. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 03.09.2025 (Ku. Himmani Dhaneliya vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4707 of 2021, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the present case are that the father of appellant, namely, Ramji Dhaneliya, who was serving as an Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School, Kesekodi, Block Koylibeda, District North Bastar–Kanker, expired while in service on 15.06.2002. Thereafter, the appellant’s mother submitted an application on 12.01.2004 for release of GPF, family pension and gratuity, but the same was not processed. Subsequently, the appellant submitted an application on 03.06.2021 seeking compassionate appointment, which came to be rejected on the ground of delay. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed WPS No.4707 of 2021, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 03.09.2025. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the delay in submitting the application for compassionate appointment was not attributable to 3 the petitioner. The petitioner's illiterate and aged widow mother, residing in a dense forest area, made continuous efforts since 2004 for release of pensionary benefits, but the authorities did not even accept the deceased employee as their employee until 2021 due to the loss of original service records in the 2000 Naxalite incident. Only after reconstruction of the service book in 2021, the petitioner was able to apply for compassionate appointment, and therefore rejection on the ground of delay is wholly unjustified. He further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the acute financial hardship and exceptional circumstances of the petitioner's family. The petitioner, a dependent daughter, resides with her more than 80-year-old widow mother, suffering various age-related illnesses, and both have survived in extreme poverty without receipt of any pensionary or death-cum-retiral dues for more than 20 years. The family even lost the petitioner's younger brother in 2014 due to lack of proper treatment. The authorities’ failure to release lawful dues and their refusal to consider compassionate appointment despite continuous efforts has caused severe hardship to this vulnerable tribal family residing in a remote forest area without access to basic facilities. He also submits that the learned Single Bench did not consider that the delay, if any, stood sufficiently explained by the exceptional facts of the case and also by virtue of the State Government Circular dated 23.02.2019. The respondents themselves violated Clause 15 and 16 of the circular by not accepting the deceased 4 employee’s past service, not reconstructing the service book in time, and not seeking mandatory approval of the General Administration Department in cases involving delay. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s compassionate appointment solely on the ground of delay is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside.] 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for State / respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No.4707 of 2021 vide order dated 03.09.2025, relying on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, (2022) and Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Nirval Singh, (2022), held that the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment, filed after an unexplained delay of nearly 19 years, was contrary to the very object of compassionate appointment and therefore not maintainable. 5 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra