1 2026:CGHC:14351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3378 of 2022  Ku. Rajkumari Pandey D/o Late Shri Mangalram Pandey Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Badekanera, Tahsil And, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The District Education Officer Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.03 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of present case, from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby quashing the impugned order dated 01.06.2020 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate 2 appointment, in light of order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in W.A. No. 537 of 2015, in accordance with law. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Mr. Sanjeev Sahu would submit that father of the petitioner was a Cook working under the respondent No. 3, who died in harness on 05.02.2008. He would contend that the petitioner, daughter of the deceased Government servant moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment after attaining majority on 28.09.2019. He would submit that said application has been rejected by the District Educational Officer, District Kondagaon on the ground that application was moved after expiry of 11 years from the date of death of the Government servant. He would submit that the reason assigned by the District Education Officer is erroneous and contrary to policy of compassionate appointment. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha would submit that according to the policy of compassionate appointment, application could have been moved within a period of 3 years from the date of death of Government servant. He would contend that the petitioner attained majority on 05.09.2016, whereas, application was moved on 28.09.2019, thus, it was not within prescribed period of limitation. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Admittedly, father of the petitioner died on 05.02.2008, on said date, the 3 petitioner was a minor. She attained majority on 05.09.2016, but application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved on 28.09.2019. The clause 16 of Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2013 deals with prescribed period of limitation to move an application for grant of compassionate appointment and same is reproduced herein-below :- “16. अनुकम्पा निनुयुक्ति क लिए समयु सम :- समन्यु पारिस्थितियु म अनुकम्पा निनुयुक्ति क लिए अतिकम अवति 03 वर्ष हो!गी  निवशे र्ष पारिस्थितियु म युहो अवति 05 वर्ष हो!गी।  निकनु इसक लिए औति'त्यु एव) कण दशे हुए प्रशेसनिनुक निवभागी क मध्युम स समन्यु प्रशेसनु निवभागी क0 अनुमति प्रप् कनु आवश्युक हो!गी।" 6. Perusal of above-quoted provision would make it clear that dependent is required to move application for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of 3 years from date of death of a Government servant. 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, 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. 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 4 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." 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. 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 5 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. In the present case, father of the petitioner died on 05.02.2008 and the petitioner attained majority on 05.09.2016 and moved the application on 28.09.2019 after 11 years from date of death of Government servant and after three years from date the petitioner attained majority. Further, the policy provides for a period of 3 years, which can be extended for two more year to move application for compassionate appointment. 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, thus, the District Education Officer, District Kondagaon rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner, accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant