High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7513 of 2025 NAFR 1 - Ankit Kumar Navik S/o Late Harikishan Navik Aged About 28 Years R/o M- 10, Shriram Park, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director, Directorate of Health Services, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. 4 - The Block Medical Officer, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. Shri Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Decision
Order on Board 30.07. 202 5 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 27-06-2015 (Annexure P-6) and 28-09-2018 (Annexure P-7), whereby the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of delay in applying for compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was employed as a Radiographer, and posted at the Community Health Centre, Baloda Bazar. He died on 07-11-2011 in 2 harness. At the time of his death, the petitioner was about 15 years and 8 months old and was a minor. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the department has not provided any information about the provisions of compassionate appointment and documentation. After attaining age of majority and the acquisition of educational qualification, he made an application on 20-01-2015, before the Respondent No. 4, for grant of compassionate appointment. Vide letter dated 27-06-2015, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was not submitted within the period of six months from the date of death of his father. He again made another application on 22-09-2018 to the Respondent No. 3, but the same is also rejected vide order dated 28-09-2018. Hence, this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the father of the petitioner is died in the year 2011 and he made his application in the year 2015, which is beyond the period prescribed in the compassionate appointment policy of the state government. The subsequent application for compassionate appointment is rejected in the year 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the petition in the year 2025, which is after about a lapse of 07 years. He would also submit that the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was decided by the authorities as per the existing policy for the same prevailing on the date of death of the government servant, i.e. 2011. Therefore, the petitioner is suffered from delay and latches and no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. He would also submit that, though, the compassionate 3 appointment policy of 2013 is not applicable in the case, however, in view of the pleading made in para 8.3 of the petition that the mother of the petitioner was already in government service, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner is died on 07-11-2011, the petitioner made his application for compassionate appointment on 20- 01-2015, which was rejected on 27-06-2015 on the ground of delay in making application for compassionate appointment. The subsequent application for compassionate appointment was also rejected on 28- 09-2018. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed on 26-06-2015. It is also not disputed that the petitioner's mother was in government employment. 6. It is well settled that claim of the compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the concerned employee. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as the compassionate appointment is made to enable the family to tide over the crisis which is caused as the result of death of an employee in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. This view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, reported in 2019(6) SCC 774 and Indian Bank & Ors Vs. Promila & Anr reported in 2020 (2) SCC 729 and it has also been held that though the Court has 4 sympathy with the family members of the deceased, who face the death of the deceased, but sympathy alone cannot be the basis for granting remedy to such family members and it is not for the Courts to substitute a scheme, to add or subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331 held as under: "18. 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 dependants 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. 19. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the Respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the Respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon: (2021) 16 SCC 384 held as under: "8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of 5 livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana: (1994) 4 SCC 138). It was further observed in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period, as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 9. In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the facts of the present case and further keeping in mind the delay, and applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred herein above and on perusal of the contents of this petition, this Court reaches to the conclusion that the Petitioner has no vested right to claim compassionate appointment as per the policy formulated by the State and no writ of mandamus can be issued after prolonged delay since the death of the concerned employee. 10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder