1 2026:CGHC:17648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6602 of 2021 1. Smt. Suman Bai Jurri W/o Late Shri Nakul Ram Jurri Aged About 50 Years Occupation- House Wife, R/o Village - Turakhar, Post Sideshar, Thana And Tahsil Kanker, District- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) 2. Arvind Kumar Jurri S/o Late Shri Nakul Ram Jurri Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Unemployed, R/o Village Turakhar, Post - Sedeshar, Thana And Tahsil - Kanker, District- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Panchayat Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Panchayat Directorate Vikas Bhawan Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector Dantewada, District- Dantewada (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Dantewada, District- Dantewada (C.G.) 5. Deputy Director Panchayat And Social Welfare Department Dantewada, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None, in two rounds. For State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Gov. Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.04 .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 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.21 17:46:55 +0530 2 pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 05.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 4. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment as per policy applicable on the date of death of employee and in view of the principle laid down by this court. 10.3 That any other /relief order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the cast of the petition may kindly be passed.” 2. Facts in brief are that husband of the petitioner, namely, Nakul Ram Jurri was Gram Sahayak in the office of Collector, Dantewada. He died in harness on 01.07.1999. After death, the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment, which was considered vide memo dated 07.12.1999. Consent of the petitioner was sought for appointment in Dantewada district within 7 days. In response, the petitioner requested to grant compassionate appointment within Kanker District and her request was forwarded to Collector, Kanker. The Collector, Kanker vide order dated 26.10.2016, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the application was moved after expiry of prescribed period of limitation. 3. In the year 2017, the petitioner appeared in “Mukhyamantri Jan Darshan” and moved an application to decide her pending application for grant of compassionate appointment. It was also requested in said application that if it is not feasible to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, name of her son, who has attained majority, may be considered. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Dantewada vide order dated 05.10.2021 rejected the claim of the petitioner on two ground 3 I. Initially, the petitioner was offered appointment, which was not accepted and, II. Application for grant of compassionate appointment on behalf of son of the petitioner has been moved after 17 years from the date of death of Government servant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that husband of the petitioner died in the year 1999, whereas, application was moved by son of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in the year 2017, and thus, said application was barred by limitation according to the Clause 16 of the policy for compassionate appointment. It is also argued that the petitioner herself was offered appointment, which was not accepted, and therefore also, petitioners are not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. 6. I have heard Mr. Saini and Mr. Verma at length and perused the documents placed on record. 7. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 1999 and we are in 2026. The petitioner has already survived for 27 years. As per clause 16 of the policy for compassionate appointment, application for grant of compassionate appointment can be moved within period of 3 years from date of death of a Government servant and in special circumstances within period of 5 years, whereas, in the present case, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities in the year 2017. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 4 471 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. 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." 9. The very object of providing compassionate appointment is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time and the same has been achieved 5 as the family has already survived for such a long period. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that the compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to families who have experienced a sudden hardship. 10. In the present case, the petitioner was offered an appointment in the year 1999, but she refused to accept it; therefore also, no case is made out for interference after 27 years. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my opinion no case is made out for interference. In result, this petition is hereby dismissed, at admission stage. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant