1 2025:CGHC:56254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8497 of 2019 Ghanshyam Kumar Rajwade S/o Late Shri Dev Prasad Rajwade, Aged About 31 Years R/o Jagdishpur, PS and Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Ganga Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 3. Superintending Engineer, Shyam Barnai Project Circle, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division No. 2, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. (Cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 19.11.2025 1. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure-P/11), whereby, claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.11.19 16:52:13 +0530 2 rejected on the ground that claim has been preferred belatedly and as per Clause 16 of the Policy issued by the State on 14.06.2013, maximum limit for compassionate appointment is 3 years and in special cases same shall be 5 years, however, the petitioner could not fulfilled the said criteria. 2. As per averments made in the petition, late Dev Prasad Rajwade who is father of the petitioner was died in harness on 20.09.1995 while working as Peon under the respondents/Authorities, leaving behind his wife Smt. Rampyari and four children including present petitioner. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner filed application for grant of compassionate appointment before the Authority on 22.08.2006 (Annexure-P/2). When the same was not considered, the petitioner filed WPS No.5117/2009 before this Court which was ultimately withdrawn vide order dated 09.09.2009 with liberty to file representation before the Authority. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Authority, however, his claim was rejected by the impugned order on the ground of delay in filing the application. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the since the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father so he was not eligible for appointment and he has filed the application for compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority. He further submits that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner and petitioner's case is covered under Policy issued by 3 the State. In this regard, he would rely on the Policy issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh on 10th June 1994 (Annexure- P/16), according to which, if at the time of death any member of the family is minor then the said member will be eligible for compassionate appointment after attaining majority. He would also submit that as per said Policy there is no requirement to examine financial condition of the concerned family. He also places reliance on the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Yash Agrawal Vs. State of CG and Ors1 wherein in the similar situation when the petitioner (therein) filed an application for compassionate appointment after attaining the majority and no communication was made by the employer to the family, the learned Single Bench found that, as per Policy, rejection on the ground of limitation was not proper and directed the Authority to consider the case of the petitioner. In view of such submission, he prays to quash the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 and allow the present petition. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of the petitioner and submits that there are series of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this High Court, in which, it has been observed that if an application for compassionate appointment is filed after prolonged delay even after attaining majority, the claim for compassionate appointment is not permissible and further compassionate appointment is not source 1 2025:CGHC:16566 WPS No.2438/2021 (decided on 23.09.202) 4 of the employment. It is also well settled that if claim is preferred belatedly for any of the reason, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost on account of delay on the part of the dependent in seeking compassionate appointment. In support of his submission he places reliance in the matter of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors2 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court and also on the judgments decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Ankit Kumar Navik Vs. State of CG and Ors3 and Ku. Smriti Verma Vs. State of CG and anr4. In view of such submission, he submits that this petition has no merit and same deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 6. When this Court puts a query to counsel for the petitioner that though at the time of demise of deceased employee, present petitioner was minor, however, why mother of the petitioner has not applied for compassionate appointment, he submit that her mother was not eligible for such appointment at that time. However, counsel has not averred in this petition why she has not applied for such claim and why she was not eligible for claim at the relevant time. 7. Having considered the facts of the case and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court in Debarata Tiwari (Supra) and also considering the 2 2023 INSC 202 : 2023 SCC Online SC 219 3 2025:CGHC:53759-B : WA No.786/2025 decided on 04.11.2025 4 2025:CGHC:51830-B : WA No.734/2025 decided on 17.10.2025 5 judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Ankit Kumar Navik and Ku. Smriti Verma (referred to above), this Court finds that delay in filing the application defeats the very object of the scheme of compassionate appointment as compassionate appointment is not the sole source of employment. In the above precedents, it is also held that the compassionate ground appointments are not intended to create a windfall for the kin of the deceased employee and the employer is only required to assess the financial condition which keeps the kitchen fire burning. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after lapse of a considerable period of from the date of death of the employee, as its object is to provide immediate succor to the family in the financial distress. It is also well established that when there is prolonged delay either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. 8. Applying the aforesaid settled legal principles in the present case and considering the facts' situation of the case, this Court finds no reasonable ground to interfere in the impugned order. 9. Hence, this petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay