1 2026:CGHC:21375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4810 of 2022 * - Yuvraj Sahu S/o Late Shri Veersingh Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Pandhi, Post- Paragaon, Block- Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Sector- 19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dharsiwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 For Respondent No. 4 & 5 : : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Ms. Akansha Verma Dabhadker, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case, from the authorities. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.05.07 18:29:47 +0530 2 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure- P/1) passed by respondent no. 4 and thereby direct the respondent authority to appoint the petitioner on the basis of compassionate appointment, 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 facts, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner namely Veersingh Sahu was Secretary of Gram Panchayat Akoli, Janpad Panchayat Dharsiwa, District Raipur. He died on 20.04.2015 and he left behind widow and son (petitioner herein). The age of the petitioner, on the date of demise of his father was 12 years and he applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 12.03.2020 before attaining majority, but after acquiring requisite qualification. The application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 01.06.2022 on the ground that 05 years time was granted to the petitioner to acquire requisite qualification and after expiry of 05 years, the petitioner was below 18 years of age. 3. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Advocate would argue that in the policy for grant of compassionate appointment for Secretary, Gram Panchayat, it is nowhere stated that the dependent must have completed 18 years of age on the date of consideration. She would submit that the petitioner belongs to other backward class and he is entitled to claim age relaxation according to the circulars and rules issued by the State Government. It is also argued that the petitioner acquired required eligibility criteria for the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat, but his claim has been rejected by assigning a ground 3 which is contrary to the provisions of the policy for grant of compassionate appointment. She would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2015 during probation period and at that time, petitioner was below 18 years of age. They would contend that after lapse of 11 years, it would not be proper for the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment as the petitioner has already survived for such long period. It is also contended that according to Clause 4 of the policy for grant of compassionate appointment, in the year 2020 the age of the petitioner was below 18 years, therefore, his claim could not be considered for appointment. 5. Ms. Akansha Verma Dabhadker, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5 has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, reported in AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 774. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents. 7. In the matter of Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under : "7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of 4 livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee. 8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nirval Singh (supra), it has been held at paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under : "7. In our view there is more than one impediment in the way of the respondent. 8. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same. 5 9. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant clause of the new policy which reads as under: "The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the date of issue of instructions. The cases, where compassionate employment has not been given due to discontinuance of the earlier policy since 4/2002, shall also be considered and requisite relief, in lieu compassionate employment, shall be granted as per above policy instructions." 9. It is well settled principles of law that the claim of a dependent can be considered for grant of compassionate appointment within reasonable time with intention to provide immediate financial relief to a bereaved family from destitution. In the present case, the father of the petitioner died in the year 2015 and we are in 2026 and according to Clause 4 of the policy for grant of compassionate appointment, claim of a dependent can be considered within period of 05 years if such a dependent fulfills all required criteria. But as petitioner was found below age of 18 years on the date of consideration, in my opinion, his claim was rightly rejected. 10. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned dated 01.06.2022 passed by respondent No. 4. 11. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti