1 2026:CGHC:5495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 480 of 2023 1 - Kalpana Mannewar D/o Late Shri Shivaram Mannewar Aged About 45 Years R/o Amruwa, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Minimata Bango District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Minimata Bngo Canal, Division No. 5, Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neela Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/01/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “I. To issue direction to the respondent authorities concerned to produce the entire records pertaining to present writ petition. ii. To issue appropriate writ/ writs, orders, direction/directions thereby directing the respondent to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on the ground of compassionate. To issue appropriate writ/ writs, orders, direction / directions thereby set aside the order dated 15.02.2010 and 10.03.2011 Annexure P/1. iv. Grant any other relief or Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the father of the petitioner, namely Late Shri Shivaram Mannewar, was working as a work-charged contingent employee in the office of the respondent authorities during his lifetime and died in harness on 28.07.2001, leaving behind his family, which fact is evident from the impugned orders dated 15.02.2010 and 10.03.2011. That soon after his sudden demise, he being the sole earning member of the family, the petitioner, his dependent daughter, submitted an application before the concerned respondent authorities seeking compassionate appointment to overcome financial hardship. That despite directions issued for reconsideration of the petitioner’s 3 case, the same has not been duly considered till date, compelling the petitioner’s mother to file an affidavit before the respondent authorities. That the respondents have failed to consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, thereby avoiding fair and proper adjudication of the matter, resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice and miscarriage of justice, hence necessitating the filing of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not claiming compassionate appointment as a matter of right, but is only seeking a direction for consideration of his case on humanitarian grounds, in consonance with the object of the Scheme, which is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government servant who has been left in penury and without any means of livelihood. It is further submitted that although it is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional scheme of public employment and cannot be claimed as a vested right, its purpose is to extend succor and assistance to dependent family members who have become destitute upon the death of the sole breadwinner. Learned counsel contends that the respondent authorities had initially given preference to the petitioner for appointment, but subsequently adopted a method of pick and choose in an arbitrary, mala fide, and unjustified manner, which is contrary to the general principles of law and amounts to a clear violation of 4 the principles of natural justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, as all allegations against the respondent authorities are denied. It was contended that the petitioner approached this Court without disclosing complete facts and with unexplained delay, since the application for compassionate appointment was submitted about eight years after the death of the petitioner’s father. As per the applicable rules and the circular dated 23.02.2019, such belated claims are not permissible, and no administrative approval could be granted. Relying on the settled law, it was submitted that delayed applications defeat the very object of compassionate appointment. The counsel further asserted that the action of the authorities is fair, legal, and in accordance with law, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition 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, it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall submit a detailed and comprehensive representation before the concerned authorities within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, clearly setting out all relevant facts and grounds in support of his claim. Upon receipt of such representation, the concerned authorities are further directed to examine, consider, 5 and decide the same objectively and expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law and applicable rules, keeping in view the humanitarian aspects of the matter, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the said representation. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat