1 CGHC010250592026 2026:CGHC:33140-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 643 of 2026 Manish Singh Patel S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh Patel Aged About 25 Years (Now 31 Years) R/o Village Bhattipara, Police Station Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer, Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) 5 - Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohammad Parvez Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.01 13:20:44 +0530 2 31.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Mohammad Parvez Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State on I.A. No.01/2026 i.e. an application for condonation of delay of 61 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2026 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 13.03.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3471/2019 (Manish Singh Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner challenged the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the District Education Officer, Bijapur, whereby his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. The appellant’s father, who was serving under the respondents, died in harness on 24.03.2012. Pursuant thereto, the appellant submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, which was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 28.12.2013. The said order was never challenged by the appellant. Thereafter, the communication dated 22.02.2018 merely informed the appellant 3 that his claim had already been rejected by the order dated 28.12.2013. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 13.03.2026, dismissed the writ petition holding that the claim was barred by delay and laches, observing that more than twelve years had elapsed since the death of the appellant’s father and that the very object of compassionate appointment, namely, to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family, stood frustrated due to the prolonged delay. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 13.03.2026, the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant is disentitled to compassionate appointment merely because he has been maintaining himself and his family for the past several years, as every individual is under a legal and moral obligation to support his family and such circumstance cannot defeat a legitimate claim for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that the appellant’s widowed mother survives only on family pension and both are residing together in financially constrained circumstances, but the learned Single Judge failed to examine their present financial condition or call for any report from the respondents in this regard. It is argued that the appellant continues to require compassionate appointment to secure a 4 dignified livelihood and that grant of such appointment would not defeat the object of the compassionate appointment scheme. Counsel further submits that the appellant’s brother has been living separately since his inter-caste marriage in the year 2008 and, therefore, the appellant alone is responsible for maintaining his widowed mother. It is also contended that the appellant’s father died in harness on 24.03.2012, when the compassionate appointment policy dated 10.06.2003 was in force, and therefore the respondents as well as the learned Single Judge erred in applying the subsequent policy dated 14.08.2013. Reliance is also placed on the recommendation dated 25.02.2013 made by the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, recommending the appellant’s appointment, which was ignored by the competent authority while rejecting his claim on 28.12.2013. It is further submitted that the appellant possesses the requisite educational qualifications, is willing to accept any suitable Class-III or Class-IV post, and has repeatedly approached the authorities by filing representations, but his claim has been rejected on technical grounds without considering its merits, thereby resulting in arbitrary denial of his lawful claim for compassionate appointment. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is 5 called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 8. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the writ petition was dismissed primarily on the grounds of delay and laches. The learned Single Judge observed that although the appellant’s father died in harness on 24.03.2012 and the appellant had applied for compassionate appointment, his claim had already been rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 28.12.2013, which was never challenged by him. It was further held that the order dated 22.02.2018 impugned in the writ petition was merely a communication reiterating the earlier rejection dated 28.12.2013 and did not confer any fresh cause of action. The learned Single Judge further observed that the writ petition, instituted in the year 2019, suffered from unexplained delay, and that more than twelve years had elapsed since the death of the appellant’s father, during which period the appellant had managed to maintain himself and his family. Consequently, it was held that the claim was clearly barred by delay and laches and that directing compassionate appointment at such a belated stage would defeat the very object of the scheme, which is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee in distress. On these findings, the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit. 6 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet