1 CGHC010020252020 2026:CGHC:34079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 727 of 2020 1 - Santosh Kumar Rajak S/o Late Shri Chhote Lal Rajak Aged About 56 Years R/o Kumhar Mohalla, Purana Gaurella, Tahsil Pendra-Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Bastar (Jagdalpur) Forest Division, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Divisional Forest Officer Marwahi Forest Division, Pendra-Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.12.2019 whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father, Late Shri Chhote Lal Rajak, who was serving as a Forest Guard, went missing during service when the petitioner was a minor. Pursuant to the department's direction, the petitioner obtained the death certificate, wherein the date of death is recorded as 12.06.1974, and the certificate was issued on 24.06.2019. Despite submitting the same, respondent 2 No. 3 rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment by order dated 07.12.2019 solely on the ground of delay, even though the petitioner had been pursuing his claim since the year 2000. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner's father is deemed to have died on 12.06.1974, and in view of the long lapse of time, it would be inappropriate to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. According to Annexure P/11, the concerned Government servant died on 12.06.1974. At this stage, directing compassionate appointment to the petitioner would be inappropriate, as more than 30 years have already lapsed. I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti