-1- (WPS No. 1814 of 2018) 2025:CGHC:6865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 1814 OF 2018 1. Ramkumari Sahu, S/o Shri Bhaiyalal, aged about 42 years, W/o Shivlal Sirsaj, R/o Mahavir Plot, Sai Nagar, Plot No.21, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Commissioner/Director, Land Record, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Land Record, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Collector, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Additional Collector, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6. The Tahsildar, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Gourav Singhal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. ] For Respondent 1-State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -2- (WPS No. 1814 of 2018) [Single Bench ] Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board (06-02-2025) 1. Petitioner seeks to challenge the Orders dated 18.6.2010 and 4.9.2017 by which her application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that both the impugned Orders deserve to be dismissed and the Petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the Petitioner’s father died on 1.5.1999, pursuant to which the application filed by the Petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by Order dated 18.6.2010 on the ground of the Petitioner being a married daughter of deceased employee and subsequently her second application has also been rejected by Order dated 4.9.2017 holding that her brother is already in government service. Therefore, in light of the Circulars issued by the State Government, the Petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment and even otherwise the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. -3- (WPS No. 1814 of 2018) 4. I have heard learned Counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 5. At the first instance, by Order dated 18.6.2010, the Petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by the Respondent-Collector on the ground that she is a married daughter of deceased employee, who died in harness on 1.5.1999, which is not sustainable in light of the decision of this Court rendered in the matter of Smt. Sorijini Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others1. Subsequently, on 18.2.2016, the Petitioner made a representation for reconsideration of her case for grant of compassionate appointment in light of the Order dated 30.11.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 296/2014. However, by Order dated 4.9.2017, the Petitioner’s application was rejected holding that her brother is already in government service and as per the policy applicable, when one of the family members already in government service, other member of the family shall not be entitled for compassionate appointment. As 1 W.P.(S) No. 296 of 2014, decided on 30.11.2015. -4- (WPS No. 1814 of 2018) such, the Order dated 4.9.2017 is in accordance with law. 6. Even otherwise, the Petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment is hopelessly barred by limitation as the death of her father had occurred more than 25 years on 1.5.1999 and during all this period the Petitioner has been able to maintain and sustain herself and her family and therefore if the petition is allowed after a delay of more than 25 years of the death of deceased employee, the whole object of the compassionate appointment scheme to provide succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member, would get frustrated. 7. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, no good ground is called for entertaining the present Writ Petition which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) sharad Judge SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.02.10 17:24:21 +0530