1 2026:CGHC:5101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1056 of 2026 1 - Premsingh Yadav S/o Late Ramlal Yadav Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Farasgaon, Tahsil- Farasgaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Conservator Of Forest Kanker Circle, District- North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 3 - Divisional Forest Officer General Forest Division, Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 4 - Collector Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, C.G. --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 29/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.02 18:01:58 +0530 2 particularly respondent No.3, to forthwith consider and grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Forest Guard or an equivalent post commensurate with his qualifications, with effect from the date of his initial application i.e. 30.09.1997, along with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, seniority, and pensionary benefits. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the arrears payable to the petitioner for the period of delay caused by their inaction. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is legally adopted son of late Premsingh Yadav. Father of petitioner Premsingh Yadav was working as Forest Guard in Central Forest Division, Bhanupratappur, who died in harness on 12.09.1997. Petitioner being legal heirs of deceased employee filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment to the post of Forest Guard on 30.09.1997 as petitioner is having all requisite qualification for appointment to the said post. However, instead appointing petitioner to the post of Forest Guard, respondent No.3 offered him to appoint as Chainman vide letter dated 12.07.1999. Since petitioner is highly educated and is post graduate degree holder, therefore, he requested for his appointment to the post of Forest Guard instead of Chainman. He further submits that thereafter petitioner made various representations before the respondents authorities for his appointment on compassionate ground, however, till date his application/ 3 representation has not been considered and decided. He next contended that inordinate delay of about 28 years in deciding the application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and violative to the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He next contended that petitioner was dependent on his father and has suffered immense hardship due to delay in deciding his application. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was duly considered by the respondent authorities. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was offered compassionate appointment to the post of Chainman and was called upon to submit his educational and other requisite documents vide Annexure P-2. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the directions contained in Annexure P-2, as he insisted to be appointed to the post of Forest Guard instead to the post of Chainman. It is next contended that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, nor does it vest any enforceable entitlement in favour of the petitioner. The scheme is framed solely with the object of providing immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant to help the sudden financial crisis arising due to the death of the earning member. The benefit is intended to meet an emergent situation and cannot be claimed after the passage of a considerable period of time. Once the immediacy of the financial hardship is lost, the very purpose of compassionate appointment stands frustrated. Any appointment granted after such prolonged delay would be contrary to the object of the scheme and inconsistent with 4 the settled principles of law governing compassionate appointments. This present petition has no merit and it be dismissed accordingly. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Admittedly, petitioner is adopted son of late Premsingh Yadav, who died in harness on 12.09.1997 while working as Forest Guard in General Forest Division, Bhanupratappur. Petitioner submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 30.09.1997, which was considered and was offered appointment to the post of Chainman and was called upon to submit his educational and other requisite documents vide Annexure P-2. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the directions contained in Annexure P-2, as he insisted on being appointed to the post of Forest Guard instead to the post of Chainman, thereafter, he made several representation and this writ petition was filed on 21.01.2026 and at present petitioner is 57 years of age.. 6. It is well settled that claim of the compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the concerned employee. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as the compassionate appointment is made to enable the family to tide over the crisis which is caused as the result of death of an employee in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. This view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, reported in 2019(6) SCC 5 774 and Indian Bank & Ors Vs. Promila & Anr reported in 2020 (2) SCC 729 and it has also been held that though the Court has sympathy with the family members of the deceased, who face the death of the deceased, but sympathy alone cannot be the basis for granting remedy to such family members and it is not for the Courts to substitute a scheme, to add or subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331 held as under :- “18. 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 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. 19. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent 6 shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon, (2021) 16 SCC 384 has held as under :- “8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] . It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or 7 offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 9. In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the facts of the present case and further keeping in mind the delay, and applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred herein above and on perusal of the contents of this petition, this Court reaches to the conclusion that the Petitioner has no vested right to claim compassionate appointment as per the policy formulated by the State and no writ of mandamus can be issued after prolonged delay since the death of the concerned employee. . 10. . 10. For the foregoing discussions, this petition beings sans merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed.. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram