1 2025:CGHC:54294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3179 of 2021 Smt. Vinita Sahu D/o Late Bhuvan Lal Sahu, W/o Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o H. No. 34, Ward No. 2, Village Gidhwa, Post Barbaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Campus Block 7, Sector 24 Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Regional Managing Director Campus Block 7, Sector 24 Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., Kawardha Project Division Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Res.No. 1/State : Mr. Vedant Sadangi, Panel Lawyer For Res. Nos. 2 to 4: Mr. Amrito Das, and Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 06/11/2025 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : - 2 “I. To quash/set aside the letter/order dated 16/3/2020 passed by respondent No. 3. ii To direct the respondents authority to reconsider the case and grant the compassionate appointment to petitioner according to his qualification. Iii Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the daughter of late Bhuvan Lal Sahu who was working as Messenger (Sandesh Vahak) with respondent Nos. 2 to 4 / Department. He died in harness on 14.12.2012 during the course of employment. He further submits that after the death of her father, she made an application for grant of compassionate appointment before respondent No. 4 on 20.02.2020 (Annexure P/3), which was rejected by the respondent department vide impugned order dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure P/5) holding that as per provision contained in Clause 16 of the instruction by the State Government of C.G. on 23.02.2019, the time limit prescribed for compassionate appointment is maximum 3 years and in special circumstances it is 5 years, but the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment on 20.02.2020 i.e. after almost more than 7 years from the expiry of time limit, therefore, due to late submission of application by the petitioner, who is daughter of deceased employee, for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that of course the period of limitation for making claim for compassionate appointment is 3 years in normal circumstance and 5 years in special circumstances as per clause 16 of the policy of State Government dated 23.02.2019, however before invoking 3 the provisions contained in clause 16 of the said policy, they were obliged to adhere the provisions contained in clause 15 of the said policy, which is clearly indicates that after the death of the government servant, the head of the department or the appointing Officer would provide information regarding compassionate appointment and the prescribed formate of application to the dependent family of the deceased Government Servant within a period of one month and such information shall be kept safe in the office records. Thereafter, the adult member of the deceased employee would make the application for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format as soon as possible, within a maximum period three months, to the Head of office, in which the deceased government servant was working before his death. In this case in hand, the respondents failed to adhere the said conditions mentioned in clause No. 15 of the said policy, therefore, now they themselves have not complied with the provisions contained in clause 15 of the police of the State Government dated 23.02.2019, they cannot take shelter of clause 16 treating the application of the petitioner to be barred by limitation. Therefore, the impugned order deserve to be set aside. 4. Mr. Sadangi, learned Panel Lawyer would submit that the State is formal party to the case, as the dispute is between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 5. Mr. Das and Mr. Verma, learned Advocates for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that admittedly the petitioner’s father died in harness on 14.12.2012 and the application for grant of compassionate appointment was made after laps of 7 years. It is settled position of law that the appointment on compassionate ground can be made strictly in accordance with Policy prescribed by the State Government and according to the said policy dated 4 23.02.2019 (Annexure R-2/1), the period of limitation for making such application is 3 years in normal circumstance and 5 years in special circumstance. As the petitioner made her claim after a laps of 7 years, therefore, her case for compassionate appointment could not be considered in light of the said policy. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that it is settled position of law that the appointment on compassionate basis is not a regular mode of appointment, rather it is departure. It is also settled that the appointment on compassionate ground has to be made strictly in accordance with policy framed in this regard. There is no dispute that the policy dated 23.03.2019 is applicable for consideration of the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. Of course, clause No. 16 of the said policy clearly indicates that the period of limitation for making such application is 3 years in normal circumstance and 5 years in special circumstance. The policy also contained the annexures, which clearly indicates the manner in which the application for compassionate appointment and the documents which were required to be submitted is to be made by the petitioner. Apart from this fact that before the clause No. 16 can be invoked, it is incumbent upon the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to adhere to the clause No. 15 of the said policy, relevant portion of that clause is quoted herein below:- 15- vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k %& ¼1½ fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds dk;kZy; izeq[k ;k fu;qfDrdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifjokj dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr laca/kh tkudkjh ,oa fu/kkZfjr vkosnu&i= dk izk:i ¼ifjf’k"V&,d½ ,d ekg dh vof/k esa miyC/k djk;k tk,xk rFkk ,slh tkudkjh dk;kZy; ds vfHkys[k 5 esa lqjf{kr j[kh tk;sxhA ¼2½ vuqdEik fu;qfDr ,oa vkosnu ds izk:i laca/kh tkudkjh vkfJr ifjokj dks izkIr gksus ds mijkUr ik= o;Ld lnL; }kjk vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa vkosnu&i= 'kh?kzkfr’kh?kz vf/kdre rhu ekg ds Hkhrj ml dk;kZy; izeq[k dks izLrqr fd;k tk,xk ftl dk;kZy; esa fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod viuh e`R;q ds iwoZ dk;Zjr FkkA dk;kZy; }kjk vkosnu&i= dh ikorh vkosnd dks nh tk,xhA 8. From perusal of the documents, it does not appear that such exercise was done by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 apprising the petitioner’s family that they are entitled for grant of compassionate appointment and for that purposes a particular form which is a annexures of the policy has been provided to them and helping them in filling up the forms for making an application for grant of compassionate appointment. Therefore, once the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have failed to adhere to their own policy, non- compliance of that order would not lead to dismissal of the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment only on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.13 17:57:09 +0530