1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1923 of 2023 Order Reserved on: 18.9.2025 Order Delivered on: 19.11.2025 • Varun Kumar Shukla S/o Late Arun Kumar Shukla Aged About 16 Years Through Next Friend Mother Namely- Smt. Vandana Shukla, Aged About 45 Years, W/o - Late Arun Kumar Shukla, R/o - Nagdoune Colony, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Police Sation - Civil Line, Tahsil, And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisagarh, Mo. No. - 8827531373. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Police Station Kewli, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Inspector General Of Police Raipur Range Raipur, Police Station Civil Lines, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Senior Superintendent Of Police Raipur, Police Station Civil Lines, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure-P/1) and further be please to direct to the respondent no. 3 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner through her next friend and mother, seeking compassionate appointment to the post of Bal Aarakshak. The claim arises from the unfortunate demise of her father, Late Arun Kumar Shukla, who was serving as a Police Constable and passed away on 12.9.2006 while in active service. In accordance with the provisions contained in the Unified Revised Instructions of 2013 governing the grant of compassionate appointments, the petitioner asserts her rightful entitlement to be considered for appointment to the said post. 3 However, despite fulfilling the requisite conditions, the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected vide memo dated 23.11.2022, without proper consideration of her eligibility and circumstances. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, seeking appropriate relief and directions from this Hon’ble Court for her appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The petitioner submits that his father, late Arun Kumar Shukla, who was serving as a Police Constable in the office of the District Police Force, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, tragically committed suicide on 12.09.2006. Following this incident, an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner’s mother. Subsequently, on 02.01.2007, the petitioner’s mother submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment, however, respondent No. 3 demanded a succession certificate from both the petitioner’s mother and grandmother. Thereafter, on 08.07.2016, the 6th Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur, in Succession Case, declared the petitioner and his mother as the lawful successors of the deceased Arun Kumar Shukla. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner’s mother again applied for compassionate appointment, but upon non-consideration of her request, the petitioner and his mother filed WPS No. 851/2017 before this Hon’ble Court. While disposing of the said petition, this Court directed the respondent authorities to duly consider the petitioner’s case and pass 4 appropriate orders regarding the grant of compassionate appointment. Despite this, the petitioner’s mother once again submitted a representation on 17.11.2022 requesting compassionate appointment, which was not acted upon, even though the petitioner, now aged 15 years and studying in Class 10th, had become eligible for such consideration. Eventually, respondent No. 2 rejected the representation on the ground that the prescribed outer limit of five years for consideration of compassionate appointment applications had expired, and therefore, the application could not be entertained as it was filed after an inordinate delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned authorities have committed a serious error of law in holding that the petitioner’s application was filed belatedly. It is submitted that the petitioner’s father passed away on 12.9.2006, at which time the petitioner was in womb and was subsequently born on 1.5.2007. At the time of the father’s demise, the circular dated 10.6.2003 was in force, which did not prescribe any period of limitation for seeking compassionate appointment. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner’s mother had, on 2.1.2007, submitted an application to respondent No. 3 for compassionate appointment, which was well within four months from the date of her husband’s death. However, the petitioner’s mother was not granted the appointment due to a criminal case instituted against her under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal 5 Code. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, being a minor at the time of the initial application, could not have filed the application personally and that upon attaining eligibility for the post of Bal Arakshak, he filed the application appropriately. Consequently, the application cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that limitation is applicable, it ought to be calculated from the date the petitioner attained majority, allowing a further period of three years for filing, thereby rendering the present application timely and maintainable. He further submits that the order passed by the respondent authority is per se illegal and it is required to be quashed by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that once the application of the mother has been rejected it cannot be re agitated and it cannot be reconsidered by the petitioner who is son of late employee. He further submits that the mother of the petitioner has never question ed the rejection of her candidature as such it has attend finality and it cannot be reopened or reconsider. He further submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed which is not required to be interfered with. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon a careful perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner was still in the womb when his father passed away. Soon after the demise, the petitioner’s mother submitted an application seeking 6 compassionate appointment merely four months after her husband’s death, however, the said application was dismissed on the ground that a criminal case under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered against her and certain family members. It is pertinent to note that at the time of the petitioner’s father’s death, the Rules of 2013 were not in force; rather, the Rules of 2003 governed the field, and those rules did not prescribe any period of limitation for filing an application for compassionate appointment. The later rules and instructions could only operate prospectively and not retrospectively. Furthermore, the rejection of the mother’s application was not on the merits of the claim but solely due to the pendency of the criminal case. Since the petitioner was born after his father’s death, his individual claim for compassionate appointment has never been adjudicated. Therefore, the petitioner’s present application deserves to be considered afresh, taking into account the earlier application filed by his mother and the fact that, at the time of his father’s demise, the Rules of 2003 —under which no limitation period existed—were applicable. Accordingly, for determining entitlement to compassionate appointment, the relevant circulars and rules in force at the time of the employee’s death must be given due consideration. 8. In the present matter, the petitioner has appropriately and lawfully submitted an application seeking due consideration of his candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds to the 7 post of Bal Aarakshak. The application has been filed in accordance with the relevant rules and guidelines governing compassionate appointments, with the objective of securing suitable employment in view of the untimely demise of the petitioner’s family member who had been serving in government service. The petitioner’s plea is, therefore, both genuine and maintainable, as it arises from the established principle of extending financial and social support to the bereaved family of a deceased employee through the mechanism of compassionate appointment. 9. From a careful examination of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes abundantly clear that the mother had submitted an application for compassionate appointment way back on 2.1.2007, merely four months after the demise of the petitioner’s father, who was also her husband. Despite the promptness and genuineness reflected in her approach, the said application was summarily rejected by the authorities on the sole ground that a criminal case had been registered against her, without due consideration of the nature or stage of the said proceedings or the underlying humanitarian object of compassionate appointment, which is meant to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family in the wake of the employee’s untimely death. 10. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner’s application on the ground of limitation appears to be 8 both illegal and erroneous, reflecting a clear misapprehension of law on the part of the respondent authorities. The respondents cannot take undue advantage of the petitioner’s subsequent application dated 23.11.2022, as the right to be considered for compassionate appointment had already accrued upon the death of the petitioner’s father. At the time of the father’s demise, the circular issued in 2003 was in force, and therefore, the petitioner’s claim ought to have been examined strictly in accordance with the provisions and directions contained therein. The impugned order, having been passed in contravention of the applicable circular and without due consideration of the relevant facts and law, is unsustainable. Consequently, it is declared illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of justice, and is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to duly consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment to the post of Bal Aarakshak, taking into account the fact that, as of the date of filing the application, the petitioner had not attained the age of majority and was only 16 years old, making him eligible for such appointment solely on the basis of his age. However, in the event that the petitioner has now attained the age of 18 years or is on the verge of attaining majority, he shall be at liberty to submit an appropriate application seeking compassionate appointment to the post of Constable. Upon such submission, the respondent department shall be under a legal 9 obligation to consider his case on merits, treating the same as having been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, since the petitioner is entitled, in accordance with law, to apply for compassionate appointment within three years from the date of attaining majority. This consideration shall also be deemed to be in conformity with the provisions and timelines prescribed under the circular of 2013, ensuring that the petitioner’s claim is adjudicated fairly and without being barred by limitation. 12. This Court has also considered the aforesaid aspect in WPS No. 5857/2021 while considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary to Government Department of Education (Primary) and others vs. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa, reported in 2021 20 SCC 707 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect and has categorically held that the policy would be considered on the date of death of the deceased and not in interminate and variable factors meaning thereby that the date of death is important for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment based on the existing policy. In para 20 & 21 of the said judgment, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under :- “20. The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is a 10 fixed factor that does not change. The next date, namely, the date of consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the competent authority. There is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. Let us take for instance a hypothetical case where 2 government servants die in harness on 1-1-2020. Let us assume that the dependants of these 2 deceased government servants make applications for appointment on 2 different dates say 29-5-2020 and 2-6-2020 and a modified Scheme comes into force on 1-6-2020. If the date of consideration of the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different results, one in respect of the person who made the application before 1-6-2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after 1-6-2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same date and the dependants of those employees apply on two different dates, one before the modified Scheme comes into force and another thereafter, they will come in for differential 11 treatment if the date of application and the date of consideration of the same are taken to be the deciding factor. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable d factor. 21. Coming to the case on hand, the employee died on 8-12-2010 and the amendment to the Rules was proposed by way of a draft Notification on 20-6- 2012. The final Notification was issued on 11-7-2012. Merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after the issue of the amendment, the respondent could not have sought the benefit of the amendment. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Akkamahadevamma C.B. on which the Tribunal as well as the High Court placed reliance, was not applicable to the case of compassionate appointments, as the 12 amendment in Akkamahadevamma C.B. came as a result of the existing rule being declared to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” 13. Likewise, in a decision in Supram Prasad v. State of C.G. and another 2012 (4) CGLJ. 137 (DB), this Court has held that where dependant applies for compassionate appointment in State services immediately after attaining majority they must considered in accordance with law expeditiously. “The fact remains that the petitioner has attained majority on 18.10.2014 and the circular dated 14.6.2013 permits in special circumstances, time line has been Increased from three years to five years, there is no reason for respondent No.2 to reject the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.” 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed. 15. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to duly examine and consider the petitioner’s case for the grant of Bal Aarakash, in accordance with the relevant rules, regulations, and policies governing such matters. Furthermore, in the event that the petitioner has attained the age of majority, the respondent authorities shall also take appropriate steps to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds to the post of Regular Constable, subject to the fulfillment of all requisite 13 formalities, eligibility criteria, and procedural requirements as prescribed by law. The entire process shall be carried out expeditiously and in a fair, transparent, and just manner, ensuring that the petitioner’s claim receives due and proper consideration within a reasonable time frame. 16. This exercise be done within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 18.9.2025 19.11.2025 19.11.2025 Raghu Jat