-1- 2025:CGHC:39818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 543 of 2022 Devnandan Ram S/o Late Radheshyam Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Sur, Post- Sur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.). 3 - The Collector Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.). 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.). 5 - The Block Education Officer Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting- aside/quashing the impugned order dated 01.04.2015 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioner afresh for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of his father, in accordance with law. 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was initially appointed as a Part-Time Sweeper vide order dated 28.05.1992, and vide order dated 02.07.2003, his services were adjusted against the post of Cook on Collector rate, and thereafter, he was treated as a permanent employee. He would further submit that while serving as a Peon at the Post-Matric Boys Hostel, Sitapur, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28.08.2014. After his demise, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment, and representations were also made, but no heed was paid. 3) He would also submit that he had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 6179/2021, which was dismissed on 10.11.2021 on the ground that his claim was decided vide order dated 01.04.2015. He contends that the order 1.4.2015 was passed on an erroneous assumption that his father was working as a Part- Time Sweeper, whereas in fact, his father had attained the status of a regular employee; thus, the petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment according to the policy dated 14.06.2013. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by -3- counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner’s father was a temporary employee; thus, no case is made out for interference. It is further contended that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and can only be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable policy. The petitioner’s father was never appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post, and his services were never regularised in the regular establishment or under the work- charged and contingency-paid establishment. His appointment as a Cook on Collector rate did not confer the status of a regular government servant. 5) The State counsel relies upon Clause 3 of the consolidated compassionate appointment policy dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure P/5), which defines a "deceased government servant" as one working in the regular establishment or under the work-charged and contingency paid establishment. Since the petitioner’s father’s services were not regularized under either category, the petitioner’s case was not within the zone of consideration. He lastly submitted that the petitioner’s case was duly considered under the said policy and rightly rejected vide the order dated 01.04.2015; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7) It is an admitted position that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was passed on 01.04.2015, whereas the present writ petition has been filed on 25.01.2022. The delay of more than seven years has not been explained. Such a delay defeats the very object of the -4- compassionate appointment, which is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant in distress. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8) Further, under the policy dated 14.06.2013, only the dependents of a deceased government servant in the regular establishment or the work-charged and contingency paid establishment are eligible for consideration. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that his father was appointed as a regular employee under the respondents or that his services were regularised in any category. The record shows that his father was initially a Part-Time Sweeper and later a Cook on Collector rate, which does not satisfy the definition of "deceased government servant" under the policy; thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity. 9) For the reasons stated above, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim