[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Pusuplata Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:15641
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1437 of 2022
Pusuplata Singh D/o Haribaksh Singh, Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Naudhiya, Post Singroli, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Divisional Forest Officer, Koriya Forest Division, Ward No. 15,
Near Bus Stand Premabag, Jampara, District Baikunthpur
(Chhattisgarh) 497335, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
Chhattisgarh
4. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Surguja Forest Circle Ambikapur,
District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
5. Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan,
Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : None, in two rounds
For Respondents : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
6.4.2026
1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following
relief(s):-
10.1 Set aside order dated 18.05.2018 issued by
the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest, Chhattisgarh.
10.2 Pass an order directing the respondents to
grant compassionate appointment to the
petitioner.
10.3 Pass an order directing the respondents to
re-consider the petitioner's application for grant of
compassionate appointment.
10.4 Pass any other order this Hon'ble Court may
deem and proper in the present circumstances of
the case.
2) It is pleaded in the writ petition that petitioner's father, namely,
Haribaksh Singh who was working on the post of Forest Guard
under respondent-department died in harness on 25.9.1993 and
application moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate
appointment dated 5.2.2018 has been rejected by respondent No.
5 vide order dated 18.5.2018 on the ground that application was
moved after 24 years. Petitioner has sought a direction to
respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner's application for
grant of compassionate appointment.
3) Learned State counsel submits that petitioner failed to move
application within limitation which was prescribed in the policy
prevailing on the date of demise, therefore application was rightly
rejected by respondent No. 5.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on the record.
5) Admittedly, father of the petitioner, who was working under the
respondent authorities died in harness on 25.9.1993. The
authority concerned has rejected the application moved by the
petitioner dated 5.2.2018 holding that petitioner failed to move
application within limitation prescribed in the policy dated
10.6.1994 which was prevailing on the date of demise.
6) Furthermore, in para-7 of writ petition, it is contended that there is
no delay in filing this petition. Be that as it may, since the death of
government servant occurred in the year 1993, cause of action
arose back then whereas the daughter of the deceased employee
has preferred this petition seeking compassionate appointment in
the year 2022, i.e. after delay of long 29 years.
7) In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms.
Madhuri Maruti Vidhate1, Hon'ble Supreme Court held at
paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under :
"7.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,
1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471
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 dependents
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.
7.1. Applying the law laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid decisions
to the facts of the case on hand, to
appoint the respondent now on
compassionate ground shall be
contrary to the object and purpose of
appointment on compassionate
ground. The respondent cannot be
said to be dependent on the
deceased employee, i.e., her mother.
Even otherwise, she shall not be
entitled to appointment on
compassionate ground after a
number of years from the death of the
deceased employee.
8. Under the circumstances and in the facts
and circumstances of the case narrated
hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the
High Court have committed serious error in
directing the appellants to appoint the
respondent on compassionate ground. The
judgment and order passed by the Tribunal
confirmed by the High Court directing the
appellants to consider the case of the
respondent for appointment on
compassionate ground after a number of
years is unsustainable."
8) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh 2, it has been
held at paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under :
"7. In our view there is more than one
impediment in the way of the respondent.
8. The first is the delay in approaching the
Courts for redressal after a period of 7
years even if he is making
representations. The very objective of
providing immediate amelioration to the
family is extinguished. The second is that
the earlier policy having been abolished
and the new policy having coming into
force, the application has been
considered under the new policy and the
options available were offered to the
respondent who failed to avail of the
same.
9. Our attention has been drawn to the
relevant clause of the new policy which
reads as under:
"The above policy instructions shall be
applicable from the date of issue of
instructions. The cases, where
compassionate employment has not been
given due to discontinuance of the earlier
policy since 4/2002, shall also be
considered and requisite relief, in lieu
compassionate employment, shall be
granted as per above policy instructions."
9) The very object of providing compassionate appointment is to
ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time and
same has been achieved as the family has already survived for
such a long period. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
2. (2019) 6 SCC 774
has ruled that compassionate appointment is a way to provide
immediate financial assistance to families who have experienced
sudden hardship, therefore, I do not find any good ground to
interfere into the matter.
10) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n kDigitally
y a signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.04.07
17:09:45 +0530
