1 2025:CGHC:54467 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9403 of 2023 Ashutosh Thethwar S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Thetwar Aged About 41 Years R/o In Front Of Fatahamuda Pond, Jutemil, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Mantralay, Naya Raipur, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralay, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 07.11.2025 1. The petitioner calls in question the order dated 13.10.2021 passed by the District Education Officer, Raigarh (DEO), whereby his application seeking compassionate appointment has been YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.11 19:01:29 +0530 2 rejected on the ground that the claim was made at a highly belated stage and pertains to a period prior to the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, and therefore could not be entertained. 2. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 13.10.2021 and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 10.2) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, Late Shri Rameshwar Thethwar, who was serving as an Assistant Teacher under the control of the District Education Officer, Raigarh, died in harness on 18.07.1982. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was a minor aged about six months. Upon attaining majority, the petitioner submitted an application on 19.02.2003 seeking compassionate appointment. Despite several reminders given by the petitioner over the years, his application remained undecided for a considerable period. Eventually, the concerned Block Education Officer, respondent No. 5, forwarded the petitioner’s case for consideration on 13.09.2021. However, respondent No. 4, the DEO, rejected the application by order 3 dated 13.10.2021 on the ground that the claim was preferred at a highly belated stage and pertained to a period prior to the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DEO has erred in law in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. He would contend that since the petitioner was merely six months old at the time of his father’s demise, he could not have made any claim until attaining majority, and therefore the application filed in 2003 was both lawful and timely in the circumstances. It is further urged that the delay occasioned on the part of the authorities in processing and deciding the petitioner’s application cannot be attributed to the petitioner, and the rejection of his claim on the ground of delay is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold on account of gross, inordinate and wholly unexplained delay and laches. He submits that the cause of action, if any, arose in the year 1982 upon the death of the petitioner’s father, yet the claim has been pursued only after a lapse of almost forty- one years, which by itself disentitles the petitioner from any relief. Placing heavy reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. Through its Chairman & 4 Managing Director v. Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322, Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa (2010) 12 SCC 471 and State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R. K. Zalpuri (2015) 15 SCC 602, it is argued that a writ court ought not to entertain stale and dead claims, particularly where the claimant has been sleeping over his alleged rights for decades without any satisfactory explanation. 6. Learned State counsel further submits that compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right but merely an exception carved out to mitigate the immediate financial distress faced by the family due to the untimely death of the breadwinner. He places reliance on a long line of authorities of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Union of India and others v. Bhagwan Singh (1995) 6 SCC 476, Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar and another (1996) 1 SCC 301, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another (1996) 8 SCC 23, Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh (1997) 8 SCC 85, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another (2004) 12 SCC 487 and State of U.P. and others v. Ram Sukhi Devi (2005) 9 SCC 733, to contend that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after long lapse of time when the financial crisis, if any, has long since abated. Reliance is also placed on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon, reiterating that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or 5 offered after a significant gap or after the exigency prompting such consideration has ceased. 7. It is further submitted that the State is strictly governed by the compassionate appointment policy dated 10.06.2003 as amended on 02.02.2006, which clearly stipulates that an application must be submitted within three months from the date of death, extendable only up to five years in exceptional circumstances with prior approval of the General Administration Department. In the present case, not only did the death occur prior to the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh on 01.11.2000, but the petitioner’s application was filed only in 2021, far beyond the permissible window. Learned State counsel thus submits that the rejection order dated 13.10.2021 is a well-reasoned and speaking order strictly conforming to the policy and binding precedents, and accordingly the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 9. Very recently, in the matter of Tinku v. State of Haryana and others, 2024(14)SCALE15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reinforces the sanctity of established policies governing compassionate appointments. It elucidates that while the judiciary stands as a guardian of constitutional rights, it must operate within the confines of existing legal frameworks and policies. The ruling underscores that benefits like compassionate appointments are 6 not inherent rights but are subject to eligibility criteria and administrative discretion and observed as follows :- “11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification. 12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service 7 of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment. 13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted. 14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the general rule in favour of the family of the deceased employee. This is 8 resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner. 15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family. When seen in this conspectus, three years as has been laid down from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority as per the 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right. 16. In the present case, as is apparent from the record, the Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father. The claim, thus, has rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The decisions of the High Court vide the impugned judgments rejecting the claim of the Appellant thus, cannot be faulted with.” 10. Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court is unable to accept the plea advanced by the petitioner. The scheme of compassionate appointment has been carved out as a narrow exception to the general rule of recruitment and is intended solely 9 to mitigate the immediate financial hardship suffered by the family upon the sudden death of a government employee. It is not intended to provide employment as a matter of inheritance nor to revive claims after the passage of several decades. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that such appointments must be strictly in accordance with the policy in force and must be confined to situations of real, pressing financial need at the time of the demise. Once the crisis of that point in time has passed, the basis for compassionate appointment ceases to exist. 11. In the present case, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 18.07.1982. Despite the petitioner being a minor at the relevant time, it is an admitted position that no application was made by the petitioner’s mother or any adult family member within a reasonable time after the death. Even after the petitioner attained majority, he did not diligently pursue the remedy available to him under the compassionate appointment policy. The first application said to have been made in 2003 was neither substantively pursued nor taken to any logical conclusion. The second application said to have been made by the petitioner’s mother in 2008 also remained dormant. For long intervals, there was complete silence on the part of the petitioner and his family, suggesting that no immediate financial distress existed that warranted intervention under the scheme. Ultimately, an application resurfaced in 2021, nearly forty-one years after the 10 death, which was rightly rejected by the District Education Officer on the ground of inordinate delay. 12. The compassionate appointment policy of the State of Chhattisgarh, which came into force on 10.06.2003 and was amended on 02.02.2006, stipulates in clear and mandatory terms that an application for compassionate appointment must be filed within three months from the date of death and, in exceptional circumstances, within five years with prior approval of the General Administration Department. These timelines are rooted in the very purpose of the scheme, namely, addressing immediate financial hardship. In the petitioner’s case, not only was the application filed decades beyond the permissible window, but the death itself occurred prior to the reorganization of the State of Chhattisgarh on 01.11.2000. The State has consistently taken the position that cases pertaining to employees who died prior to reorganization are not covered under the existing policy. This aspect was also taken into account by the authorities while passing the impugned order. The rejection, therefore, cannot be described as arbitrary or unreasonable. 13. In addition to the above, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the recent and authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tinku (supra) wherein the Apex Court has once again reiterated the settled principles governing compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court has emphasized that 11 compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right but an exception created to provide immediate relief to a family in sudden financial distress upon the demise of an employee. The Court has categorically held that no direction can be issued compelling the State to perpetuate or repeat any illegality, nor can a claim be entertained when it has no legal foundation within the governing policy framework. The Apex Court observed that equity cannot be invoked to confer benefits without legal sanction, and that compassionate appointment must always conform strictly to the eligibility conditions, timelines, and procedural requirements prescribed in the policy. The Supreme Court has further upheld the principle that even the attainment of majority by a dependent many years later does not revive a stale claim once the window provided under the policy has expired. 14. Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the father of the petitioner died on 18.07.1982 and no application was filed by his mother or any major member of the family within a reasonable period. Even after the petitioner attained majority, the applications said to have been submitted in 2003 and 2008 were neither pursued diligently nor supported by any explanation for the prolonged inaction. Ultimately, an application resurfaced in 2021, nearly forty-one years after the death of the deceased employee. Such an extraordinary delay strikes at the very foundation and purpose of compassionate appointment, which is intended to provide 12 immediate succour and not to serve as a delayed avenue of public employment. 15. The compassionate appointment policy of the State of Chhattisgarh, effective from 10.06.2003 and amended on 02.02.2006, mandates that an application must be filed within three months of the employee’s death, extendable only up to five years in special circumstances with approval of the General Administration Department. In the present case, not only was the claim made far beyond the permissible time frame, but the death itself occurred prior to the reorganization of the State on 01.11.2000, rendering the claim outside the purview of the existing policy. The respondents have therefore acted strictly in accordance with the policy while rejecting the petitioner’s claim by a reasoned and speaking order dated 13.10.2021. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions in Thangappan (supra), Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) and R. K. Zalpuri (supra) and the recent decision in Tinku (supra) leave no room for doubt that claims suffering from unexplained delay and laches, or claims made after the crisis has long subsided, cannot be entertained by the writ courts. The object of compassionate appointment would stand defeated if such belated claims are permitted, and it would, in fact, amount to undermining the constitutional mandate of equality in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13 17. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, arbitrariness or illegality in the order passed by the respondent authorities rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. The rejection is in consonance with the governing policy as well as binding judicial precedents, including the most recent reiteration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. For these reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh