Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Daughter’s Compassionate Appointment Claim Made 24 Years After Father’s Death

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, raised more than two decades after her father’s death, should be entertained despite the delay and the explanation that her mother’s 2007 application remained unresolved.

The court held

The Court held that the claim was barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and laches and that the petitioner had not established an enforceable basis for compassionate appointment after attaining majority.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed in limine.

01Facts

The petitioner’s father, a Grade-III Shiksha Karmi, died in harness on 5 March 2002, when she was a minor.

¶ 1–3

Her mother applied for compassionate appointment in 2007, but the matter was not brought to a conclusion.

¶ 1–3

After attaining majority and acquiring the stated qualifications, the petitioner made a representation in 2026 and sought a direction for consideration of her claim.

¶ 1–3

The State opposed the petition on grounds of delay and the absence of an enforceable right to compassionate appointment after such a long period.

¶ 1–3

The High Court considered the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶ 7

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, raised more than two decades after her father’s death, should be entertained despite the delay and the explanation that her mother’s 2007 application remained unresolved.

¶ 5, 9, 13

ii.Whether compassionate appointment could be claimed after the petitioner attained majority, in the absence of a policy or rule shown to support such a claim.

¶ 6

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principles governing the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226: a petitioner must approach the Court with due diligence and within a reasonable time, and unexplained delay and laches may justify refusing relief.

¶ 7–9

It reiterated that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial hardship following an employee’s death in harness; it is not a matter of right or a benefit to be claimed after a prolonged lapse of time.

¶ 6, 10–11

The Court cited Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, on the purpose of prompt compassionate employment.

¶ 11

The Court referred to the Division Bench decision in Ankit Kumar Navik v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, as well as the dismissal of SLP No. 3586/2026 on 3 July 2026.

¶ 12

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not placed any rule, policy, or law establishing a right to apply for compassionate appointment upon attaining majority.

¶ 6

04Reasoning

The father’s death occurred in 2002, while the petitioner approached the Court in 2026. The Court found no sufficient or satisfactory explanation for this extraordinary delay; the assertion that the mother’s earlier application had not been concluded did not, in the circumstances, justify the petitioner’s late approach.

¶ 5

Given the purpose of compassionate appointment—to address the family’s immediate financial crisis—the prolonged lapse of time also supported the view that the rationale for such relief no longer survived.

¶ 10–11

The petitioner had further failed to identify a rule or policy entitling her to claim appointment upon attaining majority.

¶ 6

The Court therefore declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction.

¶ 13