A belated service-related claim, specifically for compassionate appointment, is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches if the appellant fails to show sufficient cause for the delay and the claim is barred by the governing policy.

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN B M R O I R JM LE OHANM Da O te R : LE 2026.08.10 17:19:31 +0530

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Shantam Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2059 of 2022 (Lalita Sahu vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein has been dismissed.

3. The appellant has also filed I.A. No. 1 of 2026, seeking condonation of delay of 254 days in filing the present appeal.

4. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is evident that the appellant has failed to disclose any sufficient cause which prevented her from preferring the present appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The explanation furnished by the appellant does not constitute a satisfactory justification for condoning the delay of 254 days.

5. It is also relevant to notice that the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment had been considered and rejected by the competent authority in accordance with Clause 6(1) of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2018. The said provision stipulates that where, prior to the death of the deceased employee, any member of his/her family falling within the category mentioned in Clause 5 is already in the service of the State Government, Central Government, Semi-Government service or State Power Companies, no member of such family shall be eligible for compassionate appointment.

6. In the present case, the competent authority found that the son of Late Shri Bhekhram Sahu was already in service on the post of Assistant Grade-II in the Company. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected in terms of Clause 6(1) of the Policy, 2018. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the aforesaid aspect, dismissed the writ petition.

7. The aforesaid factual background, however, need not be examined on merits in the present appeal, as the appellant is required to first overcome the delay of 254 days in approaching this Court. Since no sufficient cause has been shown for such delay, the question of condonation of delay assumes significance and is required to be considered before entering into the merits of the matter.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Others vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 652 summarized the settled principles in the following manner:-

“7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion,etc.., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctr