1 2026:CGHC:16458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 243 of 2021  Ankush Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Shyam Simngh Thakur Aged About 29 Years R/o Beside Of Ram Mandir, Chatapara Tilaknagar, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Water Resources, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Engineer In Chief Department Of Water Resources, Sihawa Bhawn Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Engineer Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Project, Departmetn Of Water Resources District Bilspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate along with Ms. Upasna Sewte, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 9.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the order dated 5.12.2019 (Annexure P/1) 10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent authority to appoint petitioner on compassionate ground to the post of Lower Division Clerk. 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) Facts of present case are that petitioner’s father namely Shyam Singh Thakur, who was working on the post of Assistant Grade-II in respondent department died in harness on 17.1.2007. Petitioner moved application for grant of compassionate appointment on 21.6.2010 and during the verification process it was found that an offence U/s 147 and 341 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner was acquitted by the competent Court vide judgment dated 23.1.2018. Petitioner preferred WPS No. 6235 of 2019 which was disposed vide order dated 19.8.2019 directing respondent authorities to decide the representation. Addl. Secretary, Water Resources Department, State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 5.12.2019 has rejected the 3 representation made by the petitioner on the ground that application was moved by the petitioner beyond the limitation prescribed in the prevailing policy. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application moved by petitioner was not decided by the respondent department due to pending criminal case. He further submits that since petitioner was acquitted by the competent Court vide judgment dated 23.1.2018, respondent authorities were under obligation to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner since he is possessing all the essential qualifications for the appointment to a class-III post. He prays that a direction may be issued to respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 4) 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 rejected by the authority concerned. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) Admittedly, father of the petitioner, who was working under the respondent department died in harness on 17.1.2007. Petitioner moved application for grant of compassionate appointment on 21.6.2010 and during character verification, it was found that a 4 criminal case was registered against him. However, petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 23.1.2018 but the authority concerned rejected the representation moved by the petitioner holding that application moved by him in the year 2010 was beyond the limitation prescribed in the prevailing policy. 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. 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 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 5 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 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 6 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 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: 2026.04.15 10:26:06 +0530