1 CGHC010288592018 2026:CGHC:35902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6035 of 2018  Ku. Shasikala Darro D/o Late Shri Jagat Ram Darro, Aged About 22 Years Village And Post Bogar, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Land Record, Naya Raipur District Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Commissioner, Land Record , Indravati Bhawan, I St. Floor, Block No. 2 Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Collector Land Records Branch District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vivek S. Ojha, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 13.8.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- I. to quash/set aside the letter/order dated 16/11/16 passed by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure P/4). Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.08.13 13:50:37 +0530 2 II. to direct the respondents authority to consider the case and grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. III. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father, namely Jagat Ram Darro who was working on the post of Chainman under respondent department died in harness on 20.5.2000. He further submits that application was moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities on 6.10.2016 and the respondent No. 4 rejected the same vide order dated 16.11.2016 on the ground of delay. He contends that petitioner was aged about four years when her parents expired and she moved application immediately after attaining majority. He further contends that respondent authorities ought to have taken lenient view while considering the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He prays to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that petitioner’s father died on 20.5.2000 and petitioner moved application in the year 2016 therefore the respondent No. 4 rightly rejected the application on the ground of delay. He further submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 documents placed on the record. 5) Admittedly, father of the petitioner, who was working under the respondent authorities died in harness on 20.5.2000 and petitioner was a minor back then. Be that as it may, since the death of government servant occurred on 20.5.2000, cause of action arose in the year 2000 whereas the daughter of the deceased employee moved application in the year 2016 and preferred this petition seeking compassionate appointment in the year 2018. 6) In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate1, Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under : "7.Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 7.1. Applying the law laid down by 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 4 this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee. 8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable." 7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh2, it has been held at paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under : "7. In our view there is more than one impediment in the way of the respondent. 8. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 5 respondent who failed to avail of the same. 9. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant clause of the new policy which reads as under: "The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the date of issue of instructions. The cases, where compassionate employment has not been given due to discontinuance of the earlier policy since 4/2002, shall also be considered and requisite relief, in lieu compassionate employment, shall be granted as per above policy instructions." 8) In the present case, petitioner’s father died on 20.5.2000 and this petition has been filed on 7.9.2018. The very object of providing compassionate appointment is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time and same has been achieved as the family has already survived for such a long period. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to families who have experienced sudden hardship, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere into the matter. 9) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a