1 2026:CGHC:16869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3648 of 2022 * - Rekhlal Dewangan S/o Late Shri Hemlal Dewangan, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village And Post Vinayakpur, Tahsil And Distrct Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - C.E.O. Jila Panchayat Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat Gundardehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Meenakshi Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2/ State For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : : Mr.Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby quashing the order dated 13.09.2019 issued by respondent no. 4 and further direct the authority to pass the speaking / reasoned order regarding the compassionate appointment of the petitioner as per law. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the post of peon. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.15 19:01:44 +0530 2 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 cost of the petition, may be given.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that father of the petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Development Extension Officer (Gram Sevak) in the agricultural department died in harness on 21.01.1994. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 05.07.2003 and matter remained pending consideration before the respondent authorities. The application of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 13.09.2019 on the ground of delay. Against said order, this petition has been preferred. 3. Ms. Meenakshi Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argued that the application was moved within period of limitation in the year 2003 and therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have considered it strictly in accordance with existing policy. She would pray to quash the order Annexure P-1 dated 13.09.2019. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court. They would submit that father of the petitioner died in the year 1994, whereas he approached the respondent authorities in the year 2003 and thereafter kept mum for long 19 years. They would contend that the petitioner should have approached this Court immediately thereafter when his application was not considered or remained pending. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 6. The father of the petitioner who was working on the post of Gram Sevak in agricultural department died in the year 1994. The petitioner moved application for grant of compassionate appointment and same has been rejected vide order dated 13.09.2019. Initially there was delay of 09 years as the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on 05.07.2003, thereafter the petitioner remained in state of slumber for period of 19 years and never approached this Court, when his application was not decided by the respondent authorities. On 13.09.2019, the application of the petitioner was rejected and again he took 03 years to approach this Court. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is hit by delay and laches and further the petitioner has already survived more than 23 years from 2003. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, AIR OnLine 2022 SC 471, 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. 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." In the matter of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774, 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 5 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. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (supra) and Nirval Singh (supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere into the matter, thus, respondent No.4 rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti