Indrajeet Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1331 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Indrajeet Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026

Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.04.07
17:45:41 +0530
                                                      1




                                                                      2026:CGHC:15525
                                                                                   NAFR

                              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                             WPS No. 918 of 2022

                      Indrajeet Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri R.K.S. Thakur, Aged About
                       32 Years R/o Gad Colony, Q.No. G 09, Dantewada, District South
                       Bastar Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ... Petitioner(s)

                                                   versus

                     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Collectorate,
                        Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.,
                        District        :         Dantewada,         Chhattisgarh

                     2. Deputy Collector, Collectorate, Dantewada, District South Bastar
                        Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

                     3. Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Dantewada, District South Bastar
                        Dantewada,       District  :    Dantewada,     Chhattisgarh

                     4. Patwari, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada
                        Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
                                                                        ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Sanchit Bhatt, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Adv.

For Respondents : Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A.

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 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records with regard to grant of compassionate appointment to other persons in the department;

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to quash/set aside the impugned letter (Annexure P/1).

10.3 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to immediately employ the petitioner on compassionate grounds to some suitable post at respondent department in accordance with his qualifications and dignity; and

10.4 Any other relief as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's father,

namely, R.K.S. Thakur who was working on the post of Patwari

died in harness on 4.11.1996. He further submits that at that time

petitioner was minor and immediately after attaining majority,

petitioner moved application in year 2006 which was rejected. He

contends that petitioner's brother also applied for compassionate

appointment during Lok Suraj Samadhan Shivir in year 2017 but

Deputy Collector, South Bastar Dantewada vide order dated

12.4.2017 has rejected the application on the ground that mother

of petitioner is in government service. He prays to allow this

petition.

3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. He

submits that application moved by the petitioner for grant of

compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2006 and

this petition has been filed in 2022, therefore, this petition

deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

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 a government servant

died in harness on 4.11.1996 and petitioner was a minor at that

time. In year 2006, petitioner moved application for grant of

compassionate appointment and same was rejected. However,

said order has not been placed on record. Furthermore, petitioner

has challenged the order dated 12.4.2017 whereby Deputy

Collector, South Bastar Dantewada has rejected the claim of

petitioner's brother for grant of compassionate appointment on the

ground that his mother is in government service.

6) In para-7 of writ petition, it is contended that petitioner was minor

when his father passed away and application moved by petitioner

was rejected in the year 2006. It is further contended that

application moved by petitioner's brother was rejected in year

2017 vide impugned order dated 12.4.2017 and due to Covid-19

outburst, he could not prefer the petition within limitation.

7) Since, petitioner's father died way back in the year 1996 and this

petition has been filed in year 2022, plea of Covid-19 outburst

appears to absurd. It is also pertinent to mention here that

petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment in his favor

assailing the order issued by Deputy Collector, South Bastar

Dantewada in favor of his brother, namely, Harshjeet Singh

Thakur. Although, petitioner has admitted that application moved

by him has been rejected in the year 2006 itself but said order has

not been placed on record.

8) Be that as it may, since the death of government servant occurred

in the year 1996, cause of action arose back then whereas the

son of the deceased employee has preferred this petition seeking

compassionate appointment in the year 2022, i.e. after delay of

long 24 years.

9) 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, 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

1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471

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."

10) 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

2. (2019) 6 SCC 774

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."

11) 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

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.

12) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

Ajinkya