BENIMADHAV KULDEEP vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010363022026 2026:CGHC:44156
SOURABH
BHILWAR
NAFR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH BHILWAR
Date: 2026.10.16
10:42:46 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7486 of 2026
Benimadhav Kuldeep S/o Late Anirudh Kumar Aged About 38 Years R/o
Vinayak Vihar, Ambedakar Nagar House No. 4 Dd Nagar Raipur District
Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, GAD, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Raipur Development Authority (RDA), Through Chief Executive
Officer (CEO), Bhakta Mata Karma Commercial Complex, GE Road,
New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate
For Respondent/ State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate through
VC assisted by Mr. Yashkarn Singh,
Advocate
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
13/10/2026

2
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction
towards the respondent authorities to consider the case of the
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on account of
death of his father.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's father, who was working as a regular employee on the
post of Pumpman under respondent No.2, died in harness on
08.10.1999, when the petitioner was only 11 years old. He
submits that the petitioner's mother had applied for
compassionate appointment immediately after the death of the
deceased employee; however, the respondent authorities kept the
application pending and, only in the year 2020, informed the
petitioner that compassionate appointment could not be granted.
He further submits that after attaining majority and acquiring the
requisite educational and technical qualifications, the petitioner
submitted several representations in the years 2017, 2018 and
2019 seeking consideration of the claim, but no reasoned order
was passed. He submits that there has been no intentional,
deliberate or negligent delay on the petitioner's part in
approaching this Court, as the claim remained pending with the
respondent authorities and the petitioner was informed of its
rejection only in the year 2020. He, therefore, prays for
appropriate direction regarding compassionate appointment.
3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has failed to produce

3
any acknowledgment or receipt in support of his claim that he
submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment in
the year 2019. He further submits that the present writ petition,
having been filed after an inordinate delay of more than 26 years
from the date of death of the deceased employee, is not
maintainable and also contends that such appointment cannot be
claimed after such a prolonged lapse of time. He, therefore,
submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the
grounds of inordinate delay and laches, as well as the absence of
any enforceable right to claim compassionate appointment.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
5. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the father of the
petitioner died in harness on 08.10.1999, whereas the present writ
petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of more than 26
years seeking grant of appointment on compassionate ground.
The petitioner has failed to establish any sufficient or satisfactory
explanation for such an extraordinary delay in approaching this
Court. The mere submission that the respondent authorities
informed him about the rejection of the claim in the year 2020
does not, in the facts of the present case, satisfactorily explain the
delay in approaching this Court.
6. The petitioner claims that he had submitted a representation;
however, there is neither any acknowledgment nor any receipt on
the record to establish that the said representation was, in fact,
submitted before the competent authority. Even otherwise, no

4
satisfactory or plausible explanation has been furnished for the
extraordinary delay and prolonged inaction in approaching this
Court. No exceptional circumstance has been brought on record
warranting condonation or overlooking of such delay.
7. It is well settled that the object of compassionate appointment is to
provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family to
overcome the hardship arising from the death of the employee in
harness. Such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right
after an inordinate lapse of time. In view of the unexplained delay
of more than 26 years and the failure of the petitioner to establish
any sufficient ground for entertaining the petition at this belated
stage.
8. It is also settled that a person invoking the extraordinary and
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India must approach the Court with due diligence
and within a reasonable period of time. The writ jurisdiction is not
intended to provide relief to a litigant who has remained inactive
for an unduly long period and thereafter seeks to revive a stale
claim.
9. The Court is required to examine whether such an enormous
delay deserves to be condoned in the absence of any cogent and
satisfactory explanation. Ignoring such delay may cause prejudice
to the rights and interests which may have accrued in favour of
the other parties and may also unsettle matters which have
otherwise attained finality. The principles underlying the doctrine
of delay and laches are founded upon the considerations of

5
repose, certainty and finality. A litigant who sleeps over his alleged
rights for an inordinate period cannot, as a matter of right, invoke
the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court at a belated stage.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court though there is no period of
limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed
within a reasonable time. In the case at hand, the petitioner filed
the instant writ petition after 26 years claiming the compassionate
appointment.
11. There is another facet to the matter. Compassionate ground
appointments are a welfare measure intended to enable the family
of the deceased employee to immediately tide over the sudden
financial crisis caused by the death of the employee. However, it
is also important to state that the appointment on compassionate
grounds is not intended to create a windfall for the kin of the
deceased but only to keep the kitchen fire burning.
12. Long delay on part of the petitioner in the instant case will also
invite the presumption that the financial crisis of the family has
ceased to exist.
13. In the wake of the above discussion the rationale/conditions for
grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner do not
survive.
14. The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an
employer being intended to enable the family members of a
deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden
financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be

6
made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see: Sushma
Gosain v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468].
15. Furthermore, the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
Ankit Kumar Navik vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
considered the identical issue and dismissed the appeal holding
therein that the grant of compassionate appointment after a long
time is not permissible. It has also observed that the
compassionate ground appointments are not intended to create a
windfall for the kin of the deceased. The employer is only required
to assess the financial condition which keeps the kitchen fire
burning. Subsequently the matter travelled upto the Supreme
Court in SLP No. 3586/2026 which has been dismissed by order
dated 03.07.2026 and affirmed the order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, applying the well
settled principles of law, and considering the inordinate and
unexplained delay in raising the claim, this Court is not inclined to
exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the
petitioner.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine on the ground
of delay and laches.
Sd/-

(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
$. Bhilwar