Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Nijesh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WA No. 245 of 2026|WPS No. 2604/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sumit Singh Rathore
For the Respondents: Prasoon Bhadhuri

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but an exceptional measure for immediate financial relief. Claims must be made within a reasonable time; unexplained delay of 14 years defeats the purpose of the scheme and justifies rejection.

Headnote:(A) Chhattisgarh Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2019 - Compassionate appointment - Object and purpose - Not a vested right - It is an exceptional measure intended to provide immediate relief to a family in sudden financial distress - Claim must be made within a reasonable time from date of death - Inordinate and unexplained delay defeats the very purpose of the scheme - Equity cannot be invoked to perpetuate stale claims - Grant must strictly conform to eligibility, timeline and procedural requirements. (Paras 9, 10)

(B) Delay and laches - Compassionate appointment - Application filed 14 years after death - Held, excessive and unexplained - Delay due to family dispute unsubstantiated by evidence - Even if claimant is minor at time of death, attainment of majority does not revive a time-barred claim - Policy prescribes maximum period of 5 years for exceptional cases - Claim rejected on ground of inordinate delay justified. (Paras 8, 16-21)

Facts of the case:
The appellant's father died in harness on 19.02.2005. The appellant was a minor at that time. A dispute between two wives of the deceased led to a civil suit which was compromised on 01.02.2019. Upon attaining majority, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 12.06.2019. The claim was rejected on 16.03.2023 due to inordinate delay. The writ petition challenging the rejection was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 22.01.2026. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge correctly held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exceptional measure for immediate financial relief. The delay of about 14 years from the father's death is excessive and unexplained. The appellant failed to provide evidence to substantiate the family dispute as a reason for delay.

Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the compassionate appointment claim on the ground of inordinate delay was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the dismissal, holding that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a narrow exception to equal opportunity in public employment, intended solely to provide immediate relief to a family facing sudden financial destitution. Claims must be made within the prescribed timeline, and even if the claimant was a minor at the time of death, the claim does not survive indefinitely. Unexplained delay of 14 years defeats the object of the scheme.

Result: Writ appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. the court heard the parties and noted the prayer for setting aside the single judge order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. facts: father died in 2005; minor son applied in 2019; claim rejected for delay. (Para 3)
3. appellant argument: delay was bona fide due to minority and family dispute. (Para 4)
4. state argument: unexplained delay of 18 years defeats compassionate appointment purpose. (Para 5)
5. relied on tinku: compassionate appointment not a vested right; delay of 14 years excessive. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
6. single judge correctly dismissed claim; no illegality in impugned order. (Para 9 , 10)
7. writ appeal dismissed for being devoid of merit. (Para 11)

1. Heard Mr. Sumit Kumar Rathore, Advocate, appearing for the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General for the Respondent/ State.

2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2604/2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. Thereafter, the writ appellant prefer the instant appeal before this Hon'ble Court with the following prayer:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to set aside the impugned order dated 22-01-2028 (Annexure P-1) passed by Hon'ble Single bench of this Hon'ble High Court in WP(S) No.2604/2023, in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent authority to grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

10.3 That this court may kindly direct the respondent authority to pay appropriate compensation for the hardship suffered by the petitioner and his family due to the delay caused by the respondent authority.

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working as a Circle Coordinator at Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.), and died on 19.02.2005 during service, leaving behind his widow, the petitioner (son), and a daughter. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was a minor, and his mother sought compassionate appointment for him upon attaining majority; however, no proper guidance was provided by the authorities. A dispute arose between the two wives of the deceased employee regarding entitlement, which led to filing of a civil suit that was ultimately resolved by compromise on 01.02.2019. Thereafter, upon attaining majority, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 12.06.2019, but his claim was rejected on 06.03.2020 on the ground of delay. The petitioner challenged the rejection before the High Court, which directed reconsideration of his claim; however, his representation was again rejected on 16.03.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another writ petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.01.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ appeal.

4. It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order dated 22.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 2604/2023 is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The rejection of the appellant’s claim on the ground of delay is wholly unjustified, as the delay was bona fide and occurred due to circumstances beyond the appellant’s control, including his minority at the time of his father’s death and the interse dispute between the two wives of the deceased employee, which was subsequently resolved. The appellant, upon attaining majority, promptly applied for compassionate appointment, and his mother had earlier duly informed the authorities and expressed her inability to seek employment due to ill health and limited educatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JNijesh Chauhan – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWA No. 245 of 2026|WPS No. 2604/2023

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but an exceptional measure for immediate financial relief. Claims must be made within a reasonable time; unexplained delay of 14 years defeats the purpose of the scheme and justifies rejection.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Nijesh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WA No. 245 of 2026|WPS No. 2604/2023