1 2026:CGHC:26294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4408 of 2022 Tulsiram Kanwar S/o Late Maniharlal Kanwar, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Achanakpur Navaganv, Post Pandadah, Block And Tehsil Khairagadh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Nagar, 492002. 2 - Deputy Director, Panchayat And Social Welfare, Rajnadgaon. 3 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5- Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, District Khairagadh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate grounds, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favor of the Petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice.” Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, who was working on the post of Panchayat Secretary, died in harness on 26.03.2010. He would further submit that an application for compassionate appointment was moved by mother of the petitioner in the year 2010 before respondent No. 3 and when no action was taken, WPS No. 1523 of 2011 was filed before the High Court, wherein a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to decide the claim of mother of the petitioner and at the same time, an observation was made that without being influenced by the order passed herein, the authorities would decide the representation of the petitioner. He would also submit that application moved by the mother of the petitioner was rejected on 23.10.2010 on the ground that she was not suitable for the said post. 3. He would further submit that the petitioner, who is the son of late Mehattar Kanwar moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment before respondent No. 5 on 14.11.2019, which has been rejected vide order dated 16.03.2021 on the ground that the petitioner had approached the authorities after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similarly situated dependent, namely Smt. Raimun Bai Chandrawanshi, who also did not possess the requisite educational qualification for compassionate appointment, was granted relief by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 1523 of 2011, decided on 23.07.2018, wherein the respondent authorities were directed to consider her claim for compassionate appointment; thus, on the principle of parity, an appropriate direction may also be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law. 3 5. On the other hand, Mr. 3 5. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submit that the father of the petitioner died on 26.03.2010 and claim for compassionate appointment was made by the mother of the petitioner, and same was rejected vide order dated 23.10.2010. He would further submit that the order dated 23.10.2010 was not challenged by the petitioner before appropriate forum; thus, the said order attained finality. He would contend that after long years, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities claiming compassionate appointment; therefore, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities as being time- barred; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 7. It is true that similarly situated dependent namely Smt. Raimun Bai has already been considered by the respondent authorities pursuant to the order dated 23.07.2018, but on the ground of parity, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered, as compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee. 8. In the present case, the father of the petitioner died in harness. The claim for compassionate appointment was made by the mother of the petitioner, which was rejected on 23.10.2010, and the said order was not assailed before any higher forum; thus, it attained finality. 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that once one of the dependents of a deceased Government employee moves an application for compassionate appointment and the same is rejected, any further attempt by another dependent to secure compassionate appointment is not permissible. 4 10.In the present case, the claim of one of the dependents had already been rejected in the year 2010, therefore, the application moved by the petitioner herein, who is the son of the deceased employee, was not maintainable at all. Further, the family of the deceased employee has survived for more than 15 years; thus, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by respondent No. 5. 11.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the reasons assigned in the impugned order, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 12.Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim