Yash Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Sept 2025WPS/2438/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Yash Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., W.P.(S) No. 2438 of 2021, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 23/09/2025 by Sachin Singh Rajput, J. Compassionate appointment; minor dependent of deceased Vehicle Driver; right to be considered accrues on attaining majority (31/01/2019); limitation under clause 16 of compassionate appointment policy dated 14/06/2013 inapplicable where employer failed duties under clauses 15(1) and 15(4); rejection order dated 19.02.2021 set aside; consideration directed within 60 days; guardianship by Upper Collector, Raipur; petition allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.02.2021 set aside; respondents directed to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate order within 60 days; no order as to cost. ¶¶32

Yash Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 19.02.2021 set aside; respondents directed to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate order within 60 days; no order as to cost.

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment filed after attaining majority is barred by the limitation prescribed under clause 16 of the compassionate appointment policy dated 14/06/2013. +1 more

¶¶23

Court's answer

If the employer/State failed to perform its own obligation under clauses 15(1) and 15(4) of the policy (to inform the family and provide the application for compassionate appointment), it cannot contend that the application for compassionate appointment was made belatedly.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, being a minor when his father died in harness, became eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment only upon attaining majority on 31/01/2019; his right to be considered accrued only thereafter.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment cannot sustain and is set aside, the respondents having first rejected the application on the ground of minority and then on the ground of limitation.ratio¶¶31
The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate order within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — dependent who was a minor at the employee's death. The petitioner's father, a Vehicle Driver with respondent No.2, died in harness on 04/06/2011 when the petitioner was about 10 years old; an application moved in 2015 by the petitioner's aunt was rejected on 20/11/2015 solely because the petitioner was a minor. After the petitioner attained majority on 31/01/2019, his grandmother applied on 04/12/2020, and the rejection of that application by order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-6) as barred by the 3-year/5-year limitation in clause 16 of the compassionate appointment policy dated 14/06/2013 was impugned. Held (Sachin Singh Rajput, J.): the petitioner's right to be considered for compassionate appointment accrued only on his attaining majority; and since the State's reply did not show compliance with clauses 15(1) and 15(4) of the policy (duty of the employer to inform the family and make the application available), the State could not plead belatedness. The impugned order was set aside and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment and pass an appropriate order within 60 days. Petition allowed; no order as to cost.

¶1

Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.10.09 17:24:50 +0530

¶2

2025:CGHC:16566

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

W.P.(S) No. 2438 of 2021

¶6

Yash Agrawal, S/o Late Amit Prakash Agrawal, aged about 19 Years, R/o C/o Smt. Saroj Agrawal, Shyam Nagar, Street No. 02, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Director General Prisons (Jail) And Correctional Services, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Shri Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. . Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board

¶13

23/09/2025

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief :

¶15

10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2021(Annexure P-6);

¶16

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction and direct the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment;

¶17

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate;

¶18

10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given.

¶19

Facts of the case which emerges from the pleadings are that the petitioner’s father was working on the post of Vehicle Driver with respondent No.2 and died in harness on 04/06/2011. At the time of his death the petitioner was about 10 years old. Prior to

¶20

-2-

¶21

death of petitioner’s father, his mother has left him and his father. After death of his father, the Court of Upper Collector, Raipur (C.G.) appointed his Grand Mother Smt. Saroj Agrawal as his guardian and was entrusted with the custody of the petitioner to look after him. The said order was passed on 01/02/2012 (Annexure P- 2). On 28/08/2015, petitioner’s aunt submitted an application for companionate appointment. However, the same was rejected on 20/11/2015 by respondent No.2 holding that the petitioner is minor and is not entitled for compassionate appointment (Annexure P-4). Later on, the petitioner attained the age of majority on 31/01/2019 and thereafter another application for grant of compassionate appointment was submitted by the grand mother of the petitioner on 04/12/2020 (Annexure P-5) which was rejected by the impugned 19/02/2021 by the respondent No. (Annexure P-6) which is impugned in this writ petition.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and he was given in guardianship of his grand mother by an order of the Upper Collector and an application was already moved at the time when he was minor for compassionate appointment which was rejected as the petitioner was not entitle for companionate appointment. Later on, on attaining the majority another application was filed for compassionate appointment which was illegally rejected relying on the policy for compassionate appointment by the State dated 14/06/2013. He submits that the right of the petitioner accrued for compassionate appointment only after he attained majority. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

¶23

Learned counsel for the state submits that the Policy for compassionate appointment in Clause – 16 provides that under normal circumstances the limitation for appointment on compassionate ground would be 03 years and under special circumstances 05 years. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died on 04/06/2011 and the application was moved in the year-2020 which is beyond the limitation period as prescribed under clause-16 of the policy for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the impugned order is legal and cannot be interfered in the writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner survived for so many years, therefore there is no need of compassionate appointment.

¶24

-3-

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended record.

¶26

In order to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties it would be necessary to rely upon the policy of the companionate appointment dated 14/06/2013. According to Clause - 16 of this Policy, the period of limitation is 03 years in normal circumstances and 05 years in exceptional circumstances. There is no dispute to the fact that at the time of death of petitioner’s father, he was a minor and the mother also left and he was given in guardianship to her grand mother by order of Upper Collector. It is also not in dispute that initially at the time when petitioner was minor, the aunt of the petitioner made an application which was rejected stating that the petitioner was not entitled to get the compassionate appointment. The petitioner attained majority on 31/01/2019 and thereafter only he became eligible for getting the benefit of compassionate appointment in light of Policy dated 14/06/2013.

¶27

Perusal of the Policy also indicates that according to clause 15(1) and 15 (4) after the death of the employee, it is the duty of the employer to provide the application and necessary information within one month for compassionate appointment to the dependent family members of the deceased / employee. It is also the duty of the employer that in case if there is no eligible major member in the family, the said information shall be intimated to the head of department without any further delay and copy of the same to be delivered to the head of the family. For ready reference Clause 15 (1) and 15(4) are quoted here-in-below:-

¶28

“15(1) दि�वं�गतशा�सकी�यस�वंकीकी� की�य��लयप्रमु�खय�नि�य�क्ति�तकीत�� अधि�की�री�द्वा�री�दि�वं�गतशा�सकी�यस�वंकीकी�आश्रि तपरिरीवं�रीकी# अ��कीम्पा� नि�य�क्ति�तस�बं � �जा��की�री�एवं�नि��रिरीतआवं � �-पत्रकी�प्र�रूप (परिरीशिशाष्टएकी) एकीमु�हकी�अवंधि�मुउपलब्धकीरी�य�जा�एग�तथा�ऐस�जा��की�री� की�य��लयकी�अश्रि2ल�खमु- स�रीश्रि3तरीख�जा�य�ग�।

¶29

15(4) परिरीवं�रीमुअ��कीम्पा�नि�य�क्ति�तकी�शिलएकी#ईप�त्रवंयस्कीस�स्य� ह#��परीस�बं�धि�तकी�य��लयप्रमु�खद्वा�री�त��शायकी�स7च��निवं2�ग�ध्य3 की�य��लयकी# अनिवंल�बं�: जा�एग�एवं�त�;स�बं � �पत्रकी�प्रनितशिलनिपपरिरीवं�रीकी� मु�खिखय�की# �: जा�य�ग�। ”

¶30

-4-

¶31

The reply of the State Government does not reflect as to whether such compliance of clause 15(1) and 15(4) was made by the State intimating the Family members with regard to information and application for compassionate appointment. If the employer/State failed to perform its own obligation in light of clauses of the policy as stated above, it cannot take a somersault salt to say that the application for compassionate appointment was made belatedly. Apart from this this court is conscious of the fact that, the petitioner was minor and he attained the majority on 31/01/2019 and his right to be considered for compassionate appointment accrued after only he attained the age of the majority. In case in hand, the respondents are playing hot and cold at the same time. Initially application of petitioner was rejected treating it to be minor and later on his subsequent application was rejected treating it to be barred by limitation. Therefore in light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order (Annexure P-4) cannot sustain and it is hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶32

Petition thus allowed.

¶33

No order as to cost.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶36

Ashish

Yash Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yash Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I.S. Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Manju Tripathi Vs District Co-Operative Central Bank Maryadt, Rajnandgaon

Budhram Kashyap Vs District Judge North Baster Kanker

Nit Kumar Parthi Vs Anil Kumar Jigyasi

Suresh Ku.Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Saheb Banjare, Vs State of Chhattisgarh