1 2025:CGHC:56495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1622 of 2019 Rajesh Shrivas S/o Late Shri G. L. Shrivas Aged About 25 Years (Father), Late Smt. Madhuri Shrivas (Mother), Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Saraipali, Tamnar, Disrtict- Raigarh, Chhattisgah., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distric- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Res/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Laywer. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.11.21 11:59:05 +0530 2 20.11.2025 1. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure-P/1), whereby, claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that claim has been preferred belatedly and matter is 23 years old. 2. As per averments made in the petition, mother of the petitioner Smt. Madhu Shrivas was working as Staff Nurse, Grade-III in the of respondent/Authority. She was died in harness on 07.12.1994 leaving behind two minor children i.e. petitioner and his sister. At the time of death of deceased employee, petitioner was aged about 9 months. After attaining the age of majority in the year 2012 and after completion of graduation, the petitioner filed application for grant of compassionate appointment before the Authority on 10.03.2015 (Annexure-P/2). However, despite several efforts, his claim was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that matter is of 07.12.1994 and same is 23 years old and no record is available for consideration of such claim. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the since the petitioner was minor at the time of deceased employee 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 and at the relevant time there was no limitation for such claim. He also submits that in similar case which was preferred by way of Writ Appeal No.537/2015 before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, the Division Bench allowed the appeal for compassionate appointment ignoring the aspects of delay and it was also observed that if there is no eligible person capable of being appointed on compassionate appointment then even this information ought to be given to the Head of Department. He submits that relying on said writ appeal the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed Writ Petition No.4136/2012 (Digeshwar Vs. State of CG and Ors observing that claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground of delay rather it should have been considered on merits. In view of such submission, he prays to quash the impugned order 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 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 4 seeking compassionate appointment. In support of his submission he places reliance in the matter of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors1 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 Ors2 and Ku. Smriti Verma Vs. State of CG and anr3. 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. Having considered the facts of the case and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court in Debarata Tiwari (Supra) and also considering the 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 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 1 2023 INSC 202 : 2023 SCC Online SC 219 2 2025:CGHC:53759-B : WA No.786/2025 decided on 04.11.2025 3 2025:CGHC:51830-B : WA No.734/2025 decided on 17.10.2025 5 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. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay