1 2026:CGHC:26417 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4638 of 2022  Dhanu Ram Paikra S/o Late Shri Bholaram Paikra Aged About 20 Years R/o Village - Baikona, Police Station - Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The District Education Officer District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6. The Block Education Officer Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 2 29.6.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 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 directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment against suitable post according to qualification of petitioner, within stipulated period, 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 for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father namely Bholaram Paikra who was working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under the respondents, died in harness on 24.8.2013. He further submits that at the time of demise, petitioner was a minor and petitioner moved application for grant of compassionate appointment before respondent No. 3 on 5.4.2022 immediately after attaining majority but same has not been decided till date. He prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner has moved application for grant of compassionate appointment after expiry of limitation therefore he is not entitled for compassionate appointment and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4) Heard. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that respondent No. 3 has not decided the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment till date, this petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to make a fresh application seeking therein compassionate appointment before respondent No. 3 within period of 30 days and the authority concerned is directed to decide such application, if so moved by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, preferably within period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of such application. 6) With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a