Chhattisgarh High Court rules that compassionate appointment claims filed after long delays are not maintainable, even if the applicant was a minor.

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 70

Bilaspur, January 22, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment, holding that such claims cannot be entertained after an inordinate and unexplained delay, even if the applicant was a minor at the time of the employee’s death.

The case was filed by Nijesh Chauhan, whose father, a government employee working as a Circle Coordinator in Raigarh district, died in harness on February 19, 2005. Chauhan was a minor at the time. His family later sought compassionate appointment, citing financial hardship and a dispute between the deceased employee’s two wives as reasons for the delay.

After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted his first formal application for compassionate appointment in June 2019, nearly fourteen years after his father’s death. The application was rejected by the state authorities on grounds of delay. Following an earlier direction from the High Court to reconsider the claim, the authorities again rejected it in January 2023, prompting the present writ petition.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, after examining the record and relevant policies, held that compassionate appointment is a narrow exception to the general rule of public recruitment and is intended only to provide immediate relief to a family facing sudden financial distress. The court noted that such appointments are not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of inheritance or revived after long periods of inaction.

The court observed that although the petitioner argued the delay was caused by a civil dispute between the two wives of the deceased employee, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate that claim. It also found that no application had been filed within a reasonable period after the death, either by the petitioner’s mother or any other adult family member.

Referring to the state’s compassionate appointment policy and multiple Supreme Court judgments, including a recent ruling in Tinku v. State of Haryana, the High Court reiterated that delay and laches defeat the very purpose of compassionate appointment. The attainment of majority by a dependent, the court clarified, does not revive a claim that has already become time-barred.

The judgment emphasized that permitting such belated claims would undermine the constitutional principles of equality in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the rejection order passed by the authorities, the court dismissed the petition and declined to grant any relief.

Case Reference : WPS No. 2604 of 2023, Nijesh Chauhan vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others; Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate; Counsel for the Respondents–State: Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.