1 CGHC010345712022 2026:CGHC:30190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7356 of 2022 1 - Umesh Chandrawanshi S/o Late Ratnu Ram Chandrawansi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Ghotiavahi, Post Shamtara, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate, Panchayat Through Its Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur 3 - Collector Kanker, District Kankwer (C.G.) 4 - Zila Panchayat Uttar Bastar Kanker, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Janpad Panchayat Narharpur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Shri G.S. Patel, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16.07.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 2.2.2018 (Annexure-P/1) whereby claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit by granted 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 26.9.2011. On the said date, the petitioner was a minor aged about 13 years, therefore, after attaining the age of majority, he applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 25.5.2017. Respondent No.4, vide order dated 2.2.2018, rejected the application moved by the petitioner on the ground that the application for grant of compassionate appointment was not moved within the prescribed period of limitation. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that no period of limitation is prescribed under the relevant circular and therefore, the order dated 2.2.2018 passed by respondent No.4 is erroneous. He would contend that the father of the petitioner died 3 on 26.9.2011 and immediately after attaining majority, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities claiming therein compassionate appointment. He would submit that the reasons assigned by respondent No.4 appear to be erroneous, arbitrary and discriminatory, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and a direction may be issued to respondent No.4 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2011, whereas the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2017. It is also contended that in the circular dated 27.2.2015, there is no provision to keep a post vacant till a minor dependent attains the age of majority. They would submit that the petitioner and his family have already survived for about 15 years after the death of the deceased employee and therefore, no case is made out for grant of compassionate appointment. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) A perusal of circular dated 27.2.2015 would make it clear that in the event of the death of a Panchayat Secretary, one of the dependents may apply for grant of compassionate appointment 4 within five years, if such dependent lacks the essential qualifications prescribed for the post. The father of the petitioner died on 26.9.2011 whereas, on the said date, the petitioner was aged about 13 years. He attained the age of majority in the year 2016 and thereafter, applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 25.5.2017. 7) A perusal of policy dated 27.2.2015 would make it clear that there is no provision to keep a post vacant till a dependent attains age of majority. The application of the petitioner was moved after six years and therefore, it was rejected by respondent No.4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and his family have already survived for about 15 years after the death of the deceased employee. The object of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies while in service, so as to mitigate the financial hardship caused by the sudden loss of its sole breadwinner. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of grant of compassionate appointment in the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate1, held in 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 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 5 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 respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of 6 years is unsustainable." 9) 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." 10) Having considered the facts of the present case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the findings recorded by respondent No.4 in the order dated 2.2.2018 (Annexure-P/1), no 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 7 case is made out for interference. 11) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi