1 CGHC010254352021 2026:CGHC:29706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5425 of 2021 1 - Ku. Seema Rathiya D/o Late Niranjan Rathiya Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Laat, Post Office Jhal, Tehsil Dharamjaygarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Vikas Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Vikas Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Director Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Vikas Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaygarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Nishant Basak, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Anmol Sharma, P.L. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 14.07.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. That, the Hon'ble court may be kind enough to call for the entire record pertaining to the matter of the petitioner. ii. That, the impugned order dated 04/01/2021 passed by respondent be set-aside. iii. That, the petition may be allowed and the Respondents be directed to consider the application made by the petitioner for appointment as compassionate appointment on place of her father. iv. That, any other relief deemed to be fit sought by the Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner, who was working as a Panchayat Secretary, died in harness on 13.2.2011. The petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment in the month of July, 2020, after a lapse of 9 years and it has been rejected vide order dated 4.1.2021 by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Raigarh on the ground that an application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved after a delay of nine years. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the father of the petitioner died in the year 2011, the petitioner was a minor. After attaining majority, he approached the respondent 3 authorities claiming therein grant of compassionate appointment. He would contend that the mother of the petitioner is an illiterate lady, and therefore, the petitioner could not approach the respondent authorities within the prescribed period of limitation. He would submit that the order (Annexure-P/1) dated 4.1.2021 may be quashed. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2011, whereas the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2020. Therefore, respondent No.5 rightly rejected the said application. It is also contended that the petitioner has not impleaded the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Raigarh as a party respondent. He would also submit that the petitioner has already survived for more than 14 years after death of her father and on that count also, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 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, 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 4 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. 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 5 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 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) The very object of providing compassionate appointment is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time and 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 6 same has been achieved as the family has already survived for such a long period i.e. 14 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to families who have experienced sudden hardship, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere into the matter. 9) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi