1 2026:CGHC:25723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7241 of 2018 Ku. Savitri Kaiwart D/o Late Shri Bharat Lal Kaiwart Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Portha, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Nagar Sena Evam Nagrik Suraksha Mukhyalaya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sambhagiya Senani, Nagar Sena, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jila Senani, Nagar Sena, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None in two rounds. For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / or writs / order/ or orders to quash the memo/order dated 05.07.2016 issued by the respondents department and further be direct to the respondent authorities to grant the Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.3. Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings made in the petition are that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Hawaldar (Storeman) under the respondent(s), died in harness on 27.09.2010. On the date of his death, the petitioner was a minor. After attaining the age of majority, he made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 21.01.2016. The said application was rejected by the authority concerned on 5.07.2016 on the ground that there is no provision in the policy for grant of compassionate appointment on an application moved after attaining the age of majority. 3. Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that the father of the petitioner died on 27.09.2010, whereas the application for compassionate appointment was moved on 21.01.2016. He would submit that according to the policy governing compassionate appointments, an application moved by one of the dependents can be considered within a period of three years and, in special circumstances, within a maximum period of five years. However, in the present case, the application was moved after six years and, therefore, it has rightly been rejected by the authorities. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed the present petition in the year 2018 without explaining the delay. It is submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Clause 16 of the policy for grant of compassionate appointment deals with the period of limitation and provides that an application for compassionate appointment can be moved within a period of three years and, in special circumstances, the said period may extend up to five years. The Clause-16 of the policy is reproduced as under:- 3 “16. अनुकम्पा निनुयुनि क लिए समयु सम समन्यु पारिस्थिनियु म अनुकम्पा निनुयुनि क लिए अलिकम अवलि 03 वर्ष हो!गी  निवशेर्ष पारिस्थिनियु म युहो अवलि 05 वर्ष हो!गी निकनु इसक लियु औनि&त्यु एव( कण दशे हो+ए प्रशेसक-यु निवभागी क मध्युम स समन्यु प्रशेसनु निवभागी क- अनुमनि प्रप्त कनु आवश्युक हो!गी।“ 5. From a perusal of the policy would further reveal that there is no provision granting liberty to move an application for compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority. 6. In the present case, the father of the petitioner died on 27.09.2010 and the application for grant of compassionate appointment was submitted on 21.01.2016, i.e., after a period of six years, therefore, it was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 05.07.2016. 7. The petitioner again took about two years to assail the said order by filing the present petition. 8. In paragraph 7 of the petition, it has been stated that there is no delay in filing the present petition. 9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10.No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim.