1 2026:CGHC:15641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1437 of 2022  Pusuplata Singh D/o Haribaksh Singh, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Naudhiya, Post Singroli, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Koriya Forest Division, Ward No. 15, Near Bus Stand Premabag, Jampara, District Baikunthpur (Chhattisgarh) 497335, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Surguja Forest Circle Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None, in two rounds For Respondents : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2 6.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 Set aside order dated 18.05.2018 issued by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh. 10.2 Pass an order directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.3 Pass an order directing the respondents to re-consider the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment. 10.4 Pass any other order this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case. 2) It is pleaded in the writ petition that petitioner’s father, namely, Haribaksh Singh who was working on the post of Forest Guard under respondent-department died in harness on 25.9.1993 and application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment dated 5.2.2018 has been rejected by respondent No. 5 vide order dated 18.5.2018 on the ground that application was moved after 24 years. Petitioner has sought a direction to respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment. 3) Learned State counsel submits that petitioner failed to move application within limitation which was prescribed in the policy prevailing on the date of demise, therefore application was rightly 3 rejected by respondent No. 5. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) Admittedly, father of the petitioner, who was working under the respondent authorities died in harness on 25.9.1993. The authority concerned has rejected the application moved by the petitioner dated 5.2.2018 holding that petitioner failed to move application within limitation prescribed in the policy dated 10.6.1994 which was prevailing on the date of demise. 6) Furthermore, in para-7 of writ petition, it is contended that there is no delay in filing this petition. Be that as it may, since the death of government servant occurred in the year 1993, cause of action arose back then whereas the daughter of the deceased employee has preferred this petition seeking compassionate appointment in the year 2022, i.e. after delay of long 29 years. 7) 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, 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 4 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 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." 5 8) 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 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." 9) 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 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 6 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. 10)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 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.07 17:09:45 +0530