1 2025:CGHC:60653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2892 of 2023 1 - Ajay Kumar Pradhan S/o Late Ranjit Pradhan Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 30, Ravanbhata, P.S. And Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Directorate, Urban Administration, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Deputy Director Directorate, Urban Administration, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Joint Director Urban Administration And Development, Thired Floor, R D A Building Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - The Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/12/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the matter of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Honble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to allow this writ petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 and further may kindly be please to direct the respondent authority to appoint the petitioner of compassionate. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstance of the cases including award of the cost of the petitioner may be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the father of the petitioner, namely Late Ranjeet Pradhan, was working as a Mali on a regular Grade- IV post in the office of respondent No. 6 and unfortunately died in harness on 23.11.2009 during his service tenure while posted in the said office, thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment along with Schedule-I, Schedule-II, the death certificate and other requisite documents. 3 The State Government has issued an amended circular governing compassionate appointments, which was circulated to the concerned departments. That a meeting of the Council of respondent No. 6 was held on 07.02.2020 to consider pending cases of compassionate appointment, wherein it was resolved that since no regular vacant Grade-IV post was available in the office of respondent No. 6, compassionate appointments, including that of the petitioner, may be made against available vacant Grade-IV posts at other places, accordingly, the memo dated 12.02.2020 and proposal dated 07.02.2020 were forwarded to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 5 also forwarded a memo dated 06.03.2020 to respondent No. 3 stating that no vacancy was available in the office of respondent No. 6, but one vacant post of Peon was available at Nagar Panchayat Lavan under respondent No. 3, and requested that the petitioner be appointed. That as no positive action was taken, the petitioner submitted a reminder application dated 05.01.2021 to respondent No. 6 with a copy to respondent No. 3, thereafter, respondent No. 6 again forwarded a memo dated 05.01.2021 to respondent No. 3 reiterating the proposal for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 further forwarded a memo dated 23.02.2021 to respondent No. 3 regarding pendency of 13 compassionate appointment cases and requested appointment of the candidates, including the petitioner, at other available places against vacant posts. That due to prolonged inaction, the 4 petitioner sought information under the RTI Act on 16.03.2022, and the Public Information Officer of respondent No. 6 supplied the relevant information and documents vide memo dated 30.03.2022. That as the petitioner’s application was still not decided, he filed Writ Petition (S) No. 2700/2022 before the Hon’ble High Court, which was disposed of on 21.04.2022 with a direction to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy within four months, and the said order is filed. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 12.05.2022 requesting appointment wherever a vacant post was available within the Division, however, the representation was not decided within the stipulated period, compelling the petitioner to file Contempt Petition No. 1011/2022. That during the contempt proceedings, respondent No. 5 produced an order dated 21.11.2022 rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the alleged ground of delay, which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the State’s compassionate appointment circular, leading to disposal of the contempt petition on 06.01.2023 with liberty to challenge the said order, that the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 5 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the rules governing compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 4 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and contrary to the rules and policy 5 governing compassionate appointment. He further submits that the authorities have wrongly rejected the petitioner’s claim on the ground of delay, ignoring the undisputed fact that at the time of the death of the petitioner’s father the petitioner was a minor, and that the application for compassionate appointment was filed promptly upon attaining majority, which, as per the applicable circulars, cannot be treated as delayed. He further submits that the departmental authorities had, on several occasions, corresponded and recommended the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment without raising any objection regarding delay, and therefore the subsequent rejection on this ground is mala fide, premeditated, and actuated by extraneous considerations, particularly when the petitioner refused to sign blank papers and pre-typed documents, including affidavits, allegedly prepared in the office of respondent No. 6. He further submits that respondent No. 6 passed the impugned order without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and without supplying the relevant documents, including those relating to the alleged rejection of compassionate appointment of the petitioner’s brother, of which the petitioner came to know for the first time only through the impugned decision, rendering the findings perverse and unsustainable in law. It is also alleged that on the date of passing of the impugned order, employees of respondent No. 6, acting in connivance and as part of a pre- planned design, induced the petitioner to sign certain documents 6 on the false assurance that he would be granted compassionate appointment, thereby keeping him in the dark about the true facts and the decision-making process, and as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner’s representation seeking compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father, Late Ranjit Pradhan, was rightly rejected on the ground of inordinate delay. It is submitted that the factual averments contained in the relevant paragraphs of the petition pertain to matters of record and are, therefore, not disputed; however, it is specifically contended that the petitioner’s father was working on a dying cadre post, and upon his death the said post stood abolished, leaving no vacant post available for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that an earlier application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner’s elder brother had already been considered and rejected, and as per the prevailing compassionate appointment policy, only one such application is permissible in a family, rendering the petitioner’s subsequent application untenable. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 2700/2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.04.2022 with a direction to the competent authority to take an appropriate decision on the 7 petitioner’s claim, and in compliance thereof, respondent No. 4, after due examination of the records and the applicable policy, passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2022, which is a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the petitioner has failed to make out any valid or sustainable ground for interference, and therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the pleadings on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been examined by the competent authority in compliance with the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2700/2022 and rejected vide a reasoned and speaking order dated 21.11.2022. The respondents have satisfactorily explained that no regular vacant post was available, the post held by the deceased was a dying cadre post which stood abolished upon his death, and that an earlier application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner’s elder brother had already been considered and rejected, in view of which a second claim from the same family is not permissible under the prevailing policy. The ground of delay has also been duly considered by the authority in the light of the 8 applicable circulars. The allegations of arbitrariness, mala fides, and violation of principles of natural justice are not borne out from the record. Since compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is governed strictly by the policy in force, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat