1 CGHC010342722022 2026:CGHC:31226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7811 of 2022 * - Vivek Singh Rathore S/o Late Giriwar Singh Rathore Aged About 34 Years R/o New Sarkanda, Jabdapara Road, Gali No. 1, Beside Ramdulare School Bilaspsur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Transport Division) Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Tikrapara Police Station Campus, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Secretary Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 5/ State For Respondent No. 3 For Respondent No. 4 : : : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate Mr. Harsh Tripathi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 24.06.2022, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for grant Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.23 15:08:14 +0530 2 of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the application was moved after expiry of prescribed period of 03 years. 2. Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the father of the petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Grade-III under the respondent No. 2 died in harness on 13.01.2018. The petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 07.03.2018 which was rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 02.04.2018 on the ground that the petitioner lacks requisite qualifications of D.Ed. / B.L.Ed. / T.E.T. Thereafter the petitioner again approached the respondent authorities and application was again rejected vide order dated 24.06.2022 by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the application was moved after expiry of 03 years. Mr. Agrawal would contend that initially liberty was granted to the petitioner to acquire requisite qualifications for the post of Teacher. He would contend that when petitioner approached the respondent authorities after acquiring requisite eligibility, the respondent No. 2 rejected the application for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground of delay which is perse illegal and contrary to the policy for grant of compassionate appointment. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that first application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 02.04.2018 and the petitioner never 3 challenged said order and it attained finality. They would contend that the subsequent application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities was not maintainable at all, though it has been rejected on the ground of delay. They would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner who was posted as Assistant Grade-III under the respondent No. 2 died in harness on 13.01.2018. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities on 07.03.2018 claiming therein compassionate appointment and his application was rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 02.04.2018 on the ground that at the relevant time the petitioner was not having requisite qualifications. Perusal of the order would make it clear that the petitioner was not granted liberty to acquire required qualifications, rather application was rejected on merits. After rejection of the first application, there was no occasion for the petitioner to move subsequent application for grant of compassionate appointment and there was no reason for the respondents to consider and decide the subsequent application. The subsequent application so moved by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 24.06.2022 on the ground of delay as the petitioner had approached after expiry of 03 years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has already survived for more than 08 years since date of death of his father. 4 6. Having considered the fact that the petitioner never challenged the order dated 02.04.2018 whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate applicant was rejected by the respondent No. 2, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 7. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti