ORDER : 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the memo dated 18.08.2022 passed by District Education Officer, Raipur by which petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the count that the application has not preferred within 3 months from the date of death of Government servant. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner’s father namely Dewanand Sharma was working as peon in Govt. Aided School namely Anglo Urdu Higher Secondary School, Raipur and he died in harness on 18.01.2021 thereafter the petitioner submitted an application on 18.05.2021 for grant of compassionate appointment on the basis of his qualification. The respondent No. 4 has forwarded the application for issuance of necessary to the District Education Officer but the same was rejected by the District Education Officer on 18.08.2022 on the count that application has been filed belatedly. This order is being assailed by the petitioner in this petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per clause 15(1) of the policy wherein it has been categorically held that the institution where the deceased Government servant was working the dependant of deceased Government servant should have been informed about their entitlement to get compassionate appointment. He would further submit that since there was not communication from the institution respondent No. 3, the petitioner could not submit the application within stipulated time period but as soon as he received the information he has submitted the same which was duly forwarded by the respondent No.3 thus there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. He would further submit that even otherwise, if there is delay the same should have been condoned by respondent No.2 as compassionate appointment is benevolent scheme of the State which should be considered favourably in favour of the petitioner and would pray for quashing of the impugned order. 4. The State has filed their return and denying the averments made in the writ petition and would support the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the rejection of the application is legal and justified as compassionate appointment has to be considered strictly in accordance with the policy framed by the Government and divergent from the policy is not permissible in view of the well settled legal position of law and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From perusal of the record, it is quite vivid, that the application is rejected on the count that the application was not submitted within 3 months from the date of death of deceased government servant. This Court cannot lose site of the fact that when the petitioner’s father died in harness there was Covid-19 pandemic, which has adversely effected not only in India but also in the entire world. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considering this situation has taken cognizance of the matter and condoned the delay from March 2020 to October 28.02.2022 for all the proceedings to be initiated before the Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 which reads as under:- 4. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association in the context of the spread of the new variant of the COVID19 and the drastic surge in the number of COVID cases across the country. Considering the prevailing conditions, the applicants are seeking the following:- i. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020 ; and ii. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020; and iii. pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 8. Considering the fact that Hon’ble Supreme Court has already condoned the delay for this period and the application was duly forwarded by respondent No. 3 for consideration by respondent No.2, therefore, it is incumbent on the part of District Education Officer to decide the application for grant of compassionate appointment on its merit and should have not rejected the same on the ground of delay and latches, therefore, order dated 18.08.2022 Annexure P/1 passed by District Education Officer is deserves to be set aside/ quashed. 9. It is directed that District Education Officer shall decide the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the law without being influenced by the earlier rejection order passed by him in terms of policy prevailing on its own merit as this Court has already condoned the delay in preferring the application. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.