1 2026:CGHC:19709 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3639 of 2021 Ram Vilas Sarthi S/o Late Moturam Sarthi Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Ward No. 32,khatal Mohalla , Dingapur , Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Atal Nagar , Mantralaya , Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation , Korba , District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Accounts Officer Municipal Corporation Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. S. S. Masih, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of present case, from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 (Annexure P/1) and further be 2 pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment by determining the age of petitioner on the basis of date of death of his father, in accordance with law. 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. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, who was working on the post of Peon under Respondent No. 2, died in harness on 11.03.2020. He would further submit that the petitioner, moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 15.03.2021 before respondent No.2, during the COVID-19 outbreak. He would also submit that the age of the petitioner on the date of death of his father was 44.5 years; however, the authorities rejected his application on the ground that, on the date of consideration, his age was more than 45 years, and therefore he was not entitled to compassionate appointment. 3. He would contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 In Re : Cognizance for extension of limitation, took suo motu cognizance regarding limitation and held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation prescribed under general or special laws. He would also contend that the authorities failed to consider the said judgment while rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. He would argue that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to be appointed on compassionate grounds; thus, he would pray that a direction may be issued to Respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the application for compassionate appointment was duly considered and decided strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy by the respondents and same was rejected as on the date of consideration, the age of the petitioner was more than 45 years; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. He would argue that the maximum permissible age limit is 40 years, subject to relaxation as per policy. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661, wherein it has been held that a claim for compassionate appointment can be considered only if the applicant fulfills the prescribed eligibility requirements and subject to availability of vacancy. 5. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718, wherein it has been held that the Court cannot issue a direction for appointment, but can only direct consideration of the case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra) held as under:- “11.Normal schemes contemplate compassionate appointment on an application by a dependent family member, subject to the applicant fulfilling the prescribed eligibility requirements, and subject to availability of a vacancy for making the appointment. Under many schemes, the applicant has only a right to be considered for appointment against a specified quota, even if he fulfils all the eligibility criteria; and the selection is made of the most deserving among the several competing applicants, to the limited quota of posts available. In all these schemes there is a need 4 to verify the eligibility and antecedents of the applicant or the financial capacity of the family. There is also a need for the applicant to wait in a queue for a vacancy to arise, or for a selection committee to assess the comparative need of a large number of applicants so as to fill a limited number of earmarked vacancies.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) (supra), in para 17 held as under:- “17. Thus, apart from the direction as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direction does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be, the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. To straightaway direct the appointment would only put the appellant Corporation in piquant situation. The disobedience of this direction will entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment may not be warranted. This is yet another ground which renders the impugned judgment dated October 19, 1993 unsupportable. For these reasons, the civil appeal will stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation due to pandemic of Covid-19 and passed the following order on 10.01.2022:- “I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. 5 III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining. with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 10.It is a well-settled principle of law that the relevant date for consideration of an application for compassionate appointment would be the date of death of the employee. 11.In the present case, the father of the petitioner died on 11.03.2020, and on that date, the petitioner was aged about 44.5 years, which was within the zone of consideration as per the policy prevailing at that point of time. The application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that on the date of consideration, his age exceeded 45 years and same is contrary to the judgment/order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, wherein in paragraph 5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. 12.It is also not in dispute that while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters of compassionate appointment, 6 the Court cannot direct the authorities to appoint a person, but can issue a direction to consider the case as per the prevailing policy. 13.It is also well settled principle of law that the authorities, while considering an application for compassionate appointment, are required to examine the eligibility and other relevant criteria before taking any decision. 14.Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, the petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 15.04.2021 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. 15.The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 16.The issue of age shall not come in the way while taking decision on the application for compassionate appointment. The application shall be considered strictly in accordance with the policy prevailing at the relevant time. 17.The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. 18.No order as to cost. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim