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 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 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. अनु(cid:3)कम्पा(cid:7) निनुयु(cid:3)क्ति(cid:11)(cid:12) क(cid:13) लि(cid:15)ए समयु स(cid:19)म(cid:7) :- स(cid:7)म(cid:7)न्यु पारि(cid:22)स्थि(cid:24)tiति(cid:12)यु(cid:7)(cid:27) म(cid:27) अनुक(cid:3) म्पा(cid:7) निनुयु(cid:3)क्ति(cid:11)(cid:12) क(cid:13) लि(cid:15)ए अति(cid:28)क(cid:12)म अवति(cid:28) 03 वर्ष(cid:31) हो!गी(cid:19) (cid:12)ti(cid:7) निवशे(cid:13)र्ष पारि(cid:22)स्थि(cid:24)tiति(cid:12)यु(cid:7)(cid:27) म(cid:27) युहो अवति(cid:28) 05 वर्ष(cid:31) हो!गी(cid:19)। (cid:15)(cid:13)निकनु इसक(cid:13) लि(cid:15)ए औति’त्यु एव) क(cid:7)(cid:22)ण दशे(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:31) (cid:13) हुए प्रशे(cid:7)सनिनुक निवभा(cid:7)गी क(cid:13) म(cid:7)ध्युम स(cid:13) स(cid:7)म(cid:7)न्यु प्रशे(cid:7)सनु निवभा(cid:7)गी क0 अनुम(cid:3) ति(cid:12) प्र(cid:7)प्(cid:12) क(cid:22)नु(cid:7)