1 - Faiz Ahmed Faiz S/o Late Gulam Moinuddin Aged About 35 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of The Health And Family Welfare Department
Case Details
1 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.26 11:57:42 +0530 2025:CGHC:42730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8804 of 2025 1 - Faiz Ahmed Faiz S/o Late Gulam Moinuddin Aged About 35 Years R/o Mominpara, Ambikapur, District- Ambikapur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of The Health And Family Welfare Department Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Directorate Of Health Services Old Nursing Hostel Within The D K S Mantralaya Campus, Telghani Naka, Raipur, C.G. 3 - Chief Medical Officer Sarguja, District Hospital Ambikapur, C.G. 4 - Primary (Community) Health Centre Dhourpur , District Sarguja, Ambikapur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking the following reliefs in the writ petition:- 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the case of petitioner for grant compassionate appointment immediately.” 2. The disputed fact in the instant case is that the father of the present petitioner was an employee of the Health Department and was working as a Health Supervisor at Primary Health Centre, Dhorpur, District Surguja, and had died in harness on 01-11-1996. The petitioner was 07 years of age at the time of the death of his father. The petitioner in the present case moved an application for compassionate appointment on 10-07- 2013. Thereafter, the representation was again moved on 13-02-2019, and the then Health Minister of the State has also recommended the application of the petitioner to the state government to take immediate steps, but the same has not been considered by the authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the employee has died in harness in the year 1996. After the death of the employee, the family members of the deceased employee have not been apprised of the provisions of compassionate appointment. The petitioner was only 07 years of age, and when he attained majority, he moved his application in the year 2013. As per Clause 15 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy issued by the State Government on 14-06-2013, it is for the authorities to inform the family members of the deceased employee about the provisions of compassionate appointment and to complete the formalities and documentation. Nothing has been done in the present case by the authorities. After the death of the employee, his family members are facing various difficulties, including the loss of their source of livelihood. Therefore, the petition may be allowed, and a necessary direction may be issued to the respondent authorities. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/State opposes and 3 submits that the father of the petitioner had died on 01-11-1996, and till 2013, no application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner. Although the petitioner was 07 years of age at that time, there were other family members who could claim compassionate appointment as per the existing policy for the same. In the year 1996, the father of the petitioner was an employee of the then Madhya Pradesh Government, and after his death in the year 1996, all the records are with the State of Madhya Pradesh. The policy existing at that time for compassionate appointment would be applicable and not the policy of 2013. After such a long gap, the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment in the State of Chhattisgarh. He would also submit that, as per the petitioner himself, he was 07 years of age in the year 1996 and thus, he attained majority in the year 2007, but he made his application in the year 2013, which is highly delayed. Even after making the application for compassionate appointment in the year 2013, he made a reminder representation in the year 2019, which is also delayed. Therefore, on the
Decision
ground of delay itself, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. Undisputedly, the father of the petitioner died on 01-11-1996 while he was in service. The employee died in the year 1996, the petitioner attained majority in the year 2007, the application for compassionate appointment was made in the year 2013 and representation was made in the year 2019, and the present writ petition is filed in the year 2025. The writ petition is filed about 29 years after the death of the employee. This Court, however, is of the opinion that the present petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches. 29 years is a considerably long period for making a 5. 6. 4 claim for compassionate appointment, though the petitioner had been periodically making representations to the respondents in the year 2013 and 2019. The petitioner did not averred about the existing policy of the year 1996 for compassionate appointment, when the employee died. 7. The simple reason why this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition is that, if the applicant could survive for these 29 years without the appointment being granted to him, it gives a strong inference against the applicant that he had sufficient means to sustain himself. 8. Under the circumstances, exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 for considering the case of compassionate appointment after 29 years would open a Pandora box of those stale claim cases which have not been considered by the respondents till now or which have not been pressed by the respective claimants. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of “State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Another”, 2012 (9) SCC 545, has held as under: “8. It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another method of recruitment. As claim to be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased………………………….” 10. The same view has further been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi”, 2013 (11) SCC 178. 11. The question of delay and laches also came to be considered by the Supreme Court in case of “State of Uttaranchal and Another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others” [2013 12 SCC 179] in which the 5 court has declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in case the petitioner invokes jurisdiction of court with inordinate delay, and held as under : 23- "In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, 2007 (10) SCC 137, this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: - 16…...filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.” 12. Further, in the case of Local Administration Department and Another Vs. M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, 2011 (13) SCC 42, the Supreme Court reiterating the principles relating to compassionate appointment has held as under : “11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with 6 Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. 12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time, but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors.....” 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled legal position, the petitioner could not make out a case for interference and accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. sagrika Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge