##PAGE1##

1

Digitally signed by RAME SH 2026:CGHC:14773 KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.02

10:43:37 +0530 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2822 of 2021 * - Suresh Kumar S/o Late Brijesh Singh Kariyam Aged About 23 Years R/o

Village Rampur, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa

Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Sukma District Sukma Chhattisgarh

3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sukma District Sukma Chhattisgarh

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate

For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General

For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : None, though served

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

30/03/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-

aside the order dated 04.12.2017 (Annexure P/1).

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate

appointment.

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

2

2. The facts, in brief, are that father of the petitioner who was working on

the post of Assistant Extension Officer died in harness on 23.06.2001. On the date of death, the petitioner was minor, aged about 03 years and after attaining majority, he moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 20.04.2015 and same was rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 04.12.2017. The petitioner challenged said order by filing WPS No. 2799/2017, wherein direction was issued to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide it in accordance with law. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 04.12.2017 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the

application was moved after expiry of prescribed limitation period.

3. Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that on the date of death of the government servant, the petitioner was minor and therefore, he moved application after attaining majority. He would contend that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the claim of

compassionate appointment. He would pray for a similar order.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 would oppose. He would submit that the application for grant compassionate appointment can be considered based on existing policy. He would submit that on the date of death of government servant, the petitioner was minor aged about 03 years and he approached the authority after 14 years and therefore, his application was rightly rejected. He has placed reliance of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti

3

Vidhate, AIR OnLine 2022 SC 471 and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 wherein it is held that the object of compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to families who have experienced sudden hardship and in the present case, the petitioner has already survived for more than 20 years. He would contend that the wife of the government servant failed to approach the respondent authorities claiming compassionate appointment and she waited till the petitioner attains age of majority. He would further contend that the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.12.2017 and the petitioner has preferred this petition on 10.06.2021 after four years without explaining delay. He would submit that the

petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties a