The High Court condoned a delay of 100 days in filing a writ appeal and dismissed the appeal against the rejection of an application for compassionate appointment. The Court held that the application was filed well beyond the prescribed period, defeating the objective of immediate relief.
Delay of 100 days condoned; Writ Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2025:CGHC:7164-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 96 of 2025
Girdhari Prasad Dubey S/o Late Kaushal Prasad Dubey Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Lakhanpuri, Police Station And Tahsil Charama, District Kanker Uttar Bastar Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Excise Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, P.S. Kewli, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Assistant Excise Commissioner, Rajnandgaon, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
3. Excise Commissioner, Shiv Bhawan, Bairan Bazar Raipur, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
...Respondents
Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2025.02.10 20:30:42 +0530
For Appellant : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate. : For Respondent/State Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
10.02.2025
1. Heard Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 100 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3767 of 2015 ( Girdhari Prasad Dubey vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the appellant, who was working in the Excise Department as a Excise Constable died during the service period on 04.12.2003, they have leaving being the present appellant being his son and other family member. Thereafter, the appellant has moved an application for grant of compassionate
3
appointment within limitation on 02.02.2006 (vide Annexure P/2 filed along with the writ petition). Receipt of the application has not been given by the Department. The appellant has again moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment in a proper format on 22.09.2008 along with all the necessary documents which has been rejected vide order dated 21.05.2012 after lapse of about 04 years (vide Annexure P/3 filed along with the writ petition). Thereafter, the appellant has preferred a writ petition before this Court on various ground, but none of the grounds raised by the appellant circular prevalent at the time of death of the deceased has been considered by the learned Single Judge and has passed the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of death of the deceased (father of the appellant), the circular dated 10.06.2003 was in existence and there was no time limit prescribed in the said circular for moving the application and the duty cast upon the respondent State (Department) to provide proper format application to the family members of the deceased employee for grant of compassionate appointment which is clearly mentioned in Clause 9(2) of circular dated 10.06.2003 which is filed with rejoinder vide Annexure P/4 (in the writ petition), but the learned Single Judge has not considered the same before passing the impugned order.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has moved an application within limitation, but the application in a proper format has not been supplied by the Department, therefore, there is some delay in filing the application in a proper format, hence, the appellant cannot be penalized because on the fault of the
4
Department. He also submits that as per the circular dated 10.06.2003, Clause 9(2) it is duty of the Department to provide application in a proper format, but the same has not been provided by the Department, which is clearly pleaded by the appellant in his rejoinder, but the same has not been considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.08.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.
9. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the father of the appellant, being a government servant, died on 04.12.2003, against which the appellant made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 22.09.2008 i.e. after a period of 04 years and 09 months. The said application was rejected by the respondent No. 3/Excise Commissioner on 21.05.2012 on the ground that the application has been filed with a delay of 04 years 09 months. When father of the appellant died, at that time, the appellant was minor and, furthermore, by circular dated 10.06.2003 the period for making application for grant of compassionate appointment has been extended for three years, despite that, the appellant applied for the same after 04 years and 09 months.
10. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the
5
appellant’s application for grant of compassionate appointment was rightly rejected by the impugned order dated 21.05.2012, as the basic principle/object behind giving compassionate appointment is to give immediate relief to the family in grief and, in appellant’s case, the said object is completely deteriorated.
11. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.
12. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment warranted rejection?
Whether the Single Judge committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the writ petition?
Whether the object of compassionate appointment was defeated by the delay?
Girdhari Prasad Dubey
State of Chhattisgarh
Assistant Excise Commissioner
Excise Commissioner
Ramesh Sinha
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Brijmohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
