1 2025:CGHC:54721 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2549 of 2022 1 - Gyanendra Kumar Dhiwar S/o Late Shri Anil Kumar Dhiwar, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Lakhurri, Post Lakhali, Tehsil Bamhnindih, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Janpad Panchayat, Champa Through Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Suryakawalkar Dangi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Jitendra Pali with Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 10.11.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2021 as being illegal and bad in law. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.11.12 17:06:32 +0530 2 2. The case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner's father, who was serving as Secretary, Gram Panchayat, died in harness on 05.09.2013. At the time of his death, the petitioner was about 13 years old. Upon attaining majority in the year 2017, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, at the time of such application, the petitioner possessed only the qualification of Class X, whereas the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat was Class XII. Accordingly, vide letter dated 07.09.2018, respondent No. 3, while referring to Circular dated 27.02.2015 (issued specifically for compassionate appointment to the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat, in cases where the incumbent died in harness), granted a period of five years to the petitioner to acquire the requisite qualification for such appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father was working as Secretary, Gram Panchayat - Lakhurri, Janpad Panchayat- Bamnidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and died in harness on 05.09.2013. At that time, the petitioner was a minor, and his mother, being illiterate, could not make any application before the respondent authorities seeking compassionate appointment. She submits that the petitioner attained majority on 29.11.2017 and thereafter submitted an application before respondent No. 2 on 20.12.2017 (Annexure P/2) seeking compassionate appointment. On that date, the petitioner was only a High School (Class X) pass. Hence, respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure P/4), relying upon clauses 2 and 5 of the circular dated 27.02.2015 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Raipur, permitted the petitioner to acquire the requisite qualification within five years. She submits that for appointment to the post of Panchayat Secretary, Class XII is the minimum educational qualification. Though five 3 years’ time was granted to the petitioner to obtain such qualification, he acquired it within one year by passing Class XII, thereby fulfilling the eligibility criteria. She further submits that despite this, the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected vide the impugned order dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that, as per the compassionate appointment policy dated 23.02.2019 Annexure P/5 particularly clause 16 thereof the permissible period for compassionate appointment is three years from the date of death under normal circumstances and five years in exceptional cases. She submits that in the impugned order that the petitioner obtained the requisite qualification after 5 years, 9 months, and 22 days from the date of his father’s death, and hence, his case was not liable for consideration. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, being a minor at the time of his father’s death, could not have applied earlier. As soon as he attained majority, he promptly applied for compassionate appointment and was granted five years’ time to obtain the necessary qualification, which he did within one year. Therefore, respondent No. 2 has erred in holding that the petitioner obtained the qualification after the expiry of five years. She further submits that the period of minority cannot be counted for determining the limitation period under the compassionate appointment policy. To bolster her submissions she placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Pushpendra Nath Sonesare v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another (W.A. No. 537/2015, decided on 10.09.2018), Raksha Dubey v. Director, Sericulture and Others [2018 SCC Online Chh 809], and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tushar Kant Debanshi v. State of West Bengal and Others [2012 SCC Online Cal 3449]. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently oppose the submissions and submit that as per the applicable policy of the State 4 Government, the period for seeking compassionate appointment is three years from the date of death of the employee under normal circumstances and five years in exceptional cases. Though the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father’s death, his mother neither made any application nor intimated that the petitioner’s case should be considered after attaining majority. They further submit that the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Panchayat Secretary is Class XII, which the petitioner obtained only after 5 years, 9 months, and 22 days from the date of his father’s death. Hence, his case was rightly rejected in accordance with the State Government’s policy, and the impugned order suffers from no illegality or perversity. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner’s father was working as Panchayat Secretary with the respondents and that he died in harness on 05.09.2013. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was a minor at that time. The records reveal that upon attaining majority, the petitioner promptly submitted an application for compassionate appointment. Annexure P/4 shows that while considering his application, the authorities granted him a period of five years to obtain the requisite qualification, failing which his eligibility would stand terminated. The said document clearly indicates that five years’ time was granted to acquire the qualification, which the petitioner obtained well within that period. It is not the case that the petitioner remained inactive; rather, he diligently pursued his claim soon after attaining majority. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was a minor, and his right to seek compassionate appointment could arise only upon attaining majority. Even if no application was submitted by his mother during his minority, that by itself would not extinguish his right to be considered for compassionate 5 appointment particularly when the authorities themselves granted him five years’ time to acquire the qualification, which he obtained within one year. 7. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the petitioner’s application vide the impugned order is based on presumption, conjecture, and surmise and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.08.2021 Annexure P/1 is hereby set aside. 8. Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment in accordance with law within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari