1 2026:CGHC:13988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5841 of 2021 Chhatpal Yadav S/o Late Dayaram Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Lalpur (Machadoli), P. O. Bango Dam, Tehsil- Podi- Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer In Chief Office Of Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer Office Of Chief Engineer, Minimata Hasdeo Bango Project, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintending Engineer Office Of Superintending Engineer, Hasdeo Project Circle Wrd, Rampur/ Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Office Of Sub- Divisional Officer, Minimata Bango Dam Division No. 11, (Wrd) Machadoli, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 6 - Executive Engineer Office Of Executive Engineer, Minimata Bango Dam Division No. 3, (Wrd) Machadoli, Tehsil- Podi- Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief: Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 “10.1. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record of the deceased employee as well as issuance of the impugned order for perusal of the status of the deceased employee at the time of his death as to whether he was working as a daily wages employee or as a permanent employee. 10.2. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to set order dated 08.04.2021/28.05.2021 issued by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Chief Engineer, Minimata Hadeo Bango Project, WRD Bilaspur (C.G.). 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to further direct the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment with all consequential benefit. 10.4. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner namely Dayaram Yadav was working as a daily-rated employee under the respondents. He was initially appointed on 01.02.1984, and his services were stated to have been regularized with effect from 01.10.1995 on a basic pay of Rs. 447+D.A.. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 07.04.2004 and he had completed about more than 20 years of continuous service and had acquired the status of a permanent employee. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 31.01.2012 along with relevant documents. The said application was rejected vide orders dated 08.04.2021 and 28.05.2021 on the ground that dependents of daily wage employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was a regular employee with effect from 01.10.1995 and was receiving a regular pay scale along with allowances. He would further submit that the father of the deceased rendered long continuous service of about more than 20 years and had acquired the 3 status of a permanent employee. He would also submit that that the petitioner is eligible and qualified for appointment and the respondent authorities ought to have considered his claim for compassionate appointment; thus, the impugned order (Annexure P-1), may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the application for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected by the respondent authorities as father of the petitioner was a daily wage employee and, as per the applicable policy, dependents of such employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment. He would further submit that the application was filed after a delay of about eight years from the date of death of the petitioner’s father. He has placed reliance on the policy/circular dated 10.06.2003, particularly Clause 1(B), and Clause 17 of subsequent circular dated 14.06.2013, which clearly provide that dependents of deceased daily wage employees are not eligible for compassionate appointment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate1, 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 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 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 4 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." 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh2, 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 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 5 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. 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." 8. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 219 has held as under:- "32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for 6 making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source.” 9. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage labourer on 01.02.1984. Though it is contended that his services were regularized with effect from 01.10.1995, but no conclusive material has been brought on record to establish that he was appointed against a regular & sanctioned post in accordance with law. 10.The petitioner’s father died in harness on 07.04.2004. On the said date, the circular dated 10.06.2003 with regard to compassionate appointment was in force. As per Clause 1(B) of the said policy, dependents of deceased daily wage employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment. 11.Further, the application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 31.01.2012, i.e., after a delay of about eight years from the date of death of father of the petitioner. Compassionate appointment is 7 intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee, and such belated claims defeat the very purpose of the scheme. 12.Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, applicable policy, and settled legal position, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned passed by the respondent authorities. 13.Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim