1 2025:CGHC:56216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1270 of 2023 1 - Jagdish Sidar S/o Late Shri Babulal Sidar Aged About 28 Years Unemployed, R/o Village Singpuri, Post Barodoli, Tehsil Pusour, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantrayalaya, Naya Raipur (Cg) 492001. 2 - The Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G) 492001. 3 - The District Education Officer D.E.O. Office, Raigarh (C.G.). 4 - The Block Education Officer Beo Office, Pussore, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 entire records from the Respondents for its kind perusal and to decide the instant Writ Petition. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to Quash and Set aside the Official Letter dated 24.12.2016 (Annexure P-11) & Official Order dated 21.8.2017 (Annexure P-13) in the interest of Justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order, directing the Respondents to reconsider the Petitioner's Application for his Appointment on Compassionate Grounds in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, petitioner's father, Babulal Sidar, who was serving as the Head Master at Primary School, Parsapani, District Raigarh, passed away in harness on 30.09.2012, leaving behind his widow, two daughters, and a minor son, the present petitioner. On 06.11.2012, the petitioner's mother submitted an application stating that she was not qualified for appointment and that her son, Jagdish Sidar, being a minor and not having passed the 12th Class at that time, should be considered for compassionate appointment after he completed his Higher Secondary Education. The petitioner had already passed the 10th Class in March 2011 and later passed the 12th Class (HSSC) in June-July 2015, and accordingly, on 05.10.2015, he submitted his application along with all necessary forms, declarations, and affidavits seeking compassionate appointment as Assistant Grade-III. The Block Education Officer, Pussore, 3 forwarded his application to the District Education Officer, Raigarh, on 26.10.2015. Since the prescribed time limit for submission of applications for compassionate appointment is three years from the date of death of the government employee, and the petitioner submitted his application on 05.10.2015—five days beyond the stipulated period—the DEO, Raigarh, vide letter dated 07.11.2015, referred the matter to the Director, Public Instructions, Naya Raipur for necessary instructions. As per paragraph 16 of the GAD Circular dated 14.06.2013, applications submitted beyond three years but within five years are to be forwarded to the concerned Ministry, and accordingly, the Director, Public Instructions, referred the petitioner’s case to the Secretary, School Education Department on 05.01.2016. However, following the directions of the Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 2314/2016 dated 11.08.2016, the District Education Officer, Raigarh, rejected the petitioner’s application on 24.12.2016 on the ground that although the petitioner attained majority in February 2013, he applied on 28.10.2015, i.e., after three years and two years after attaining majority, rendering him ineligible. Subsequently, the Joint Secretary, School Education Department, Raipur, also rejected the petitioner’s application on 21.08.2017 on the same ground that it was filed beyond three years from the date of his father’s death. These rejection orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment has been rejected solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of three years, whereas, in fact, the delay was merely of five days, amounting to a total of three years and five days. He further contends that the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's death on 30.09.2012, his date of birth being 06.02.1995, and therefore he could not have moved an application earlier. Upon attaining majority, the petitioner promptly submitted the application on 05.10.2015, which was only marginally delayed by five days, yet the authorities rejected it on hyper-technical grounds. Counsel argues that in matters relating to compassionate appointment, a liberal and pragmatic approach is required, particularly when the delay is minimal and justified, and that the authorities acted arbitrarily and illegally in rejecting the application without considering the petitioner’s minority and the humanitarian object behind the scheme. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the application has been rightly rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of three years, as stipulated under the relevant rules, and therefore the authority was justified in declining the request, even though the delay involved is only a very negligible period. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 6. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father’s death on 30.09.2012, his date of birth being 06.02.1995, and therefore he could submit an application for compassionate appointment only after attaining the age of majority, accordingly, the application came to be filed with a minimal delay of merely five days. In view of these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities ought not to have taken a hyper-technical objection while examining the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, particularly when, even otherwise, under the prevailing executive instructions governing compassionate appointments, the permissible period for submission of such applications ranges from three to five years in special cases. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, and taking into account the fact that the petitioner's mother had submitted an appropriate application well within the prescribed period on 6.11.2012, the authority was required to examine and consider the petitioner’s claim in light of the timely application filed by the mother. In addition to this, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was a minor at the time when the cause of action arose and when the application was initially required to be made, which further strengthens the justification for a liberal and sympathetic consideration of the case. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the impugned official letters dated 24.12.2016 and 21.08.2017, which were 6 passed against the petitioner in an arbitrary and overly technical manner, are hereby set aside, and the concerned respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case for grant of compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat