1 CGHC010104942019 2026:CGHC:34405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2494 of 2019 1 - Smt. Manju Malti Patel D/o Late Tilak Ram Patel Aged About 26 Years W/o Ishwar Patel, R/o Village And Post Bhanwarpur, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Additional Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Chhattisgarh State Garage, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No. 5 as well as the order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure P-2) issued by Respondent No. 3, whereby the respondents have rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased father on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was filed belatedly. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.08.06 17:19:22 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father died while in service and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the petitioner fulfilled all the requisite formalities and was found eligible by the department. However, her claim has been rejected solely on the ground of delay in submitting the application. It is contended that the delay was beyond the petitioner's control and, therefore, the impugned orders are arbitrary and deserve to be set aside. 3. Learned State counsel supports the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected in accordance with the applicable policy on the ground of delay in submitting the application. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is apparent that the petitioner's father died in harness on 06.01.2013. As per the applicable policy, an application for compassionate appointment was required to be submitted within three years from the date of death. However, the application was ultimately submitted in the year 2017 after the prescribed period and was rejected by the impugned orders on the ground of delay. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned orders. Since the application itself was filed belatedly and more than 14 years have now elapsed from the date of death of the deceased employee, it would be inappropriate at this stage to direct consideration of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti