SARITA SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010408942026 2026:CGHC:45475
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7716 of 2026
Sarita Singh D/o Achaldhari Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Gram
Panchayat Parri, Tehsil Surajpur, District-Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur
Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Secretary, School Education Departments, Atal Nagar Nava
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Collector, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Surajupur, Chhattisgarh.
5. The District Education Officer, Surajpur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate
For Respondent/ State : Mr S.S. Baghel, G.A.
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
28/10/2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction
towards the respondent authorities to consider the case of the

2
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on account of
death of her father.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's father, who was working as Grade-III, Shiksha Karmi
died in harness on 05.03.2002, when the petitioner was minor. He
submits that the petitioner's mother had applied for
compassionate appointment in the year 2007 after the death of
the deceased employee; however, the proceeding was not bought
to logical end. He further submits that after attaining majority and
acquiring the requisite educational and technical qualifications, the
petitioner submitted representation in the year 2026 seeking
consideration of the claim. 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. He, therefore, prays for appropriate
direction regarding compassionate appointment.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the present
writ petition, having been filed after an inordinate delay of more
than 2 decades 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.

3
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 05.03.2002 whereas the present writ
petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of more than 2
decades 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 mother of the petitioner has
filed representation and that was not bought to logical end in the
facts of the present case, satisfactorily explain the delay in
approaching this Court. Even otherwise, no 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.
6. 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 as the petitioner failed to
establish any sufficient ground for entertaining the petition at this
belated stage. Even the petitioner also failed to place any
rule/policy or law which entails that the application seeking grant
of compassionate appointment can be claimed by the children of
deceased employee after attaining age of majority.

4
7. 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.
8. 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
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.
9. 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 2 decades claiming the
compassionate appointment.
10. 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

5
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. 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.
11. In the wake of the above discussion the rationale/conditions for
grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner do not
survive. 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
made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see: Sushma
Gosain v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468].
12. 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

6
dated 03.07.2026 and affirmed the order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court.
13. 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.
14. Ex consequenti, the writ petition is dismissed in limine on the
ground of delay and laches.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Jyoti