[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Vatti vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6847 of 2021
1 - Rajesh Vatti S/o Late Siyaram Vatti Aged About 37 Years R/o
Chougel Awaspara Bhanu Pratappur, District- North Bastar, Kanker,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Forest Division Nigam Ltd. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Divisional Forest Manager, Forest Department Nigam Ltd. Antagarh
Project Division Bhanupratappur, Mulla District- North Bastar, Kanker,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate along
with Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, P.L.
For respondents : Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate
No.2 & 3
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
20.03.2026
1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following
relief(s):-
"A. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for
the entire records pertaining to the case of the
petitioner from the respondent authorities for its
kind perusal.
B. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a suitable writ or suitable direction to the
respondents-authorities to grant the petitioner
with job against compassionate appointment and
quash the order dated 23.07.2021 & 01.09.2021.
C. Any other relief may kindly be pleased granted
as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
D. Cost of the petition."
2) Facts of the present case are that father of the petitioner, namely,
Late Shri Siyaram Vatti, who was working as Peon under
respondent No.3 died in harness on 21.06.2006. Thereafter, sister
of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the
month of October or November, 2006 and when no decision was
taken on said application, another application for grant of
compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner on
29.12.2020 which was rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground
that application has been moved with a delay of 15 years. It is
also observed that the delay of 15 years may be relaxed as per
Policy for compassionate appointment.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an
application was moved by sister of the petitioner immediately after
death of deceased, which was not considered and thereafter,
another application was moved by the petitioner in the year 2020.
He would contend that rejection of application on the ground of
delay is bad in law.
4) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the
respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner
survived for 15 years and the object of compassionate
appointment is to provide immediate financial help to the family of
the deceased employee. They would further submit that there is
no provision to condone a delay of 15 years while considering
application for compassionate appointment.
5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on the record.
6) 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
1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471
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."
7) 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
2. (2019) 6 SCC 774
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."
8) Admittedly, father of the petitioner died in harness on 21.06.2006,
whereas, the petitioner moved an application for grant of
compassionate appointment in the year 2020, thus, there was a
delay of 14-15 years. In the policy for compassionate
appointment, there is no provision to condone a delay of 15 years.
It is stated in the policy that the application moved after 5 years
from the date of death of a Government servant can be
considered. 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. As in the present
case, application for compassionate appointment was moved after
15 years from the date of death of the deceased, in my opinion,
the authority concerned has not committed any error of law.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Rekha
