1 2026:CGHC:12064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3471 of 2019 Manish Singh Patel S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bhattipara, Police Station Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mohd. Parveez Khan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 13.03.2026 1. Heard. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner is calling in question order dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure-P/01) by which it has been communicated to him that his is not entitled for granted of compassionate appointment in view SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 of order dated 28.12.2013 (Annexure-P/07). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are absolutely unjustified in rejected the application of the petitioner by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this petition on the ground that the petitioner has not challenged order dated 28.12.2013 by which his claim for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through he record with utmost circumspection. 6. In the case at hand, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 24.03.2012 and petitioner’s representation for grant of compassionate appointment (Annexure-P/08) was rejected way back vide order dated 28.12.2013 (Annexure-P/07), which order has not been challenged by the petitioner in this petition, therefore, on this ground alone, this petition is liable to be rejected. Even otherwise, the petitioner has challenged order dated 22.02.2018, which is only a communication that his claim for grant of compassionate appointment has already been rejected on 28.12.2013 that too by filing this petition in the year 2019. As such, since petitioners’ father died on 24.03.2012 and when he approached the respondents authorities for grant of compassionate 3 appointment, his claim was rejected on 28.12.2013 itself and, after which, till date more than 12 years have been lapsed and he has been able to maintain himself and his family. Accordingly, petitioner’s claim is clearly hit by delay and laches. The very purpose of granting compassionate appointment will be frustrated if compassionate appointment is directed to be granted to petitioner herein at this stage. As such, in view of the above mentioned reasons, no direction can be issued for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioners at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. No cost. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if