1 2025:CGHC:36315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5786 of 2025 1 - Anita Panigrahi W/o Khirod Kumar Sadangi D/o Late Shri Radheshyam Panigrahi Aged About 51 Years Presently R/o Contractor Colony, Burla District - Sambalpur Odisha, Permanent R/o Anathalay Colony , Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Higher Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Principal Kirodimal Government Arts And Science College Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. 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 petitioner late Radheshyam Panigrahi, who died in harness on 17.12.2005 and prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:- VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.27 18:57:56 +0530 2 “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with law, in the ends of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner, including cost.” 2. The disputed fact in the instant case is that, the father of the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor at Kirodimal Govt. Arts and Science College, Raigarh and has died in harness on 17.12.2005. After death of her father, the petitioner made her application for grant of compassionate appointment, however the same has not been considered till date. Therefore, the present petition has been filed for a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the father of the petitioner has died in harness on 17.12.2005, and the petitioner had approached the authorities in the year 2018, but her her applications have not been considered by the authorities concerned. The petitioner is a qualified girl possessed the post graduation degree, B.Ed. and P.G. Diploma in Computer Application. She made her representation on 30.05.2025, but no decision has been taken either on her application for compassionate appointment or on her representation. Therefore, the authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 3 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes and submits that the father of the petitioner had died on 17.12.2005 and she made her application for compassionate appointment on 07.07.2018. The petitioner had not claimed the compassionate appointment for about 20 years after death of her father 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 17.12.2005, while he was in service and the application for compassionate appointment to the petitioner has been made on 07.07.2018. The employee died in the year 2005, and the present writ petition is filed in the year 2025, which is about 20 years after the death of the employee. This Court, however, is of the opinion that the present petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches. 20 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 20 years without the appointment being granted to her, it gives a strong inference against the petitioner that she had sufficient means to sustain herself. 4 8. Under the circumstances, exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 for considering the case of compassionate appointment after 20 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…………….” 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 5 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 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. 6 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