NIJESH CHAUHAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WA/245/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010065592026

Filing Number

WA/3749/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

WA/245/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. ( 613 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 27-Mar-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NIJESH CHAUHAN

    Adv. SUMIT SINGH RATHORE,Manisha Yadav,Manisha Yadav, ,Durga Mehar,Manisha Yadav

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.The Commissioner

  3. 3.District Education Officer

  4. 4.Block Education Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

    Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appellant's writ appeal seeking compassionate appointment following his father's death in 2005. The court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exceptional measure for immediate financial relief, and the appellant's 14-year delay in applying (filing in 2019) far exceeded the policy's prescribed limit, rendering the rejection valid and justified under applicable law and Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

  4. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WA/245/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appellant's writ appeal seeking compassionate appointment following his father's death in 2005. The court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exceptional measure for immediate financial relief, and the appellant's 14-year delay in applying (filing in 2019) far exceeded the policy's prescribed limit, rendering the rejection valid and justified under applicable law and Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case