Compassionate Appointment Barred Where Co-Dependent Is Already Employed: Chhattisgarh High Court

A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held that the compassionate appointment is governed by the policy in force on the date of the employee's death and cannot be granted where a dependent is already employed.

Background Facts 

The deceased employee worked as a Subordinate Engineer with South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). He died in December 2018 while in service. After his death, his son applied for compassionate appointment. SECL rejected the application on the ground that the deceased's widow was already employed as a teacher in a government-aided school. She was drawing both salary and a family pension.

Aggrieved by the rejection, employee's son and his widow filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court. They argued that the family continued to face acute financial hardship. They relied upon amended company circular issued in June 2024 which permitted compassionate appointment even where another dependent was employed. Whereas the SECL relied upon an older executive circular dated March 1981, which barred such appointment if any dependent was already employed. The Single Judge dismissed the petition.

Dissatisfied with the Single Judge's order, the petitioners filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

It was argued by the appellants that the amended Circular dated 25.06.2024 issued by the Respondents expressly provided for consideration of compassionate appointment to an additional dependent even in cases where another dependent is already in service. The appellants contended that their case should have been considered under the amended circular, and not under the original 1981 circular.

It was further argued that the deceased employee was initially appointed as a non-executive worker under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). He was temporarily promoted to the executive cadre but had been reverted to his non-executive post before his death. Therefore, the deceased was a non-executive employee governed by the NCWA and not by the executive circular dated 13.03.1981. The NCWA does not prohibit appointment merely because another dependent is employed. Additionally, the appellants contended that the family faced persistent financial problems.

Further appellants relied upon the judgment in South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others v. Gulshan Prakash, wherein it has been held that under the NCWA, a co-dependent is entitled to compassionate appointment even when another co-dependent is already in service.

On the other hand, it was argued by SECL that the 1981 policy was applicable to the deceased employee on the date of his death. The Circular dated 25.06.2024, had no retrospective application and could not govern a claim for compassionate appointment which had arisen much prior to its issuance.

It was contended that the deceased employee was working in the executive cadre at the relevant time, and therefore his case was squarely covered by the 1981 memorandum. It was argued that Clause (vii) of the Circular dated 13.03.1981 clearly barred consideration of compassionate appointment where one dependent of the deceased employee is already in employment. Further that the plea of financial hardship was raised in a vague manner without any substantive proof.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the Court that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but an exception to the general rule of recruitment, intended solely to mitigate the immediate financial hardship of the family of a deceased employee. The policy applicable on the date of the employee's death governs the claim, and subsequent amendments cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly so provided.

It was observed by the Court that the 2024 Circular was issued years after the employee's death and did not provide for retrospective operation. The 1981 Circular governed the compassionate appointment in respect of executive employees. The deceased employee was treated as an executive employee for the purpose of service benefits and compassionate appointment.

Relying upon Clause (vii) of the Circular dated 13.03.1981 it was held by the Division Bench that compassionate appointment cannot be granted where one dependent of the deceased employee is already in employment i.e. widow of the deceased employee was employed as a teacher. It was held that the existence of an earning member in the family disentitles the claimant from consideration under the compassionate appointment scheme.

Lastly it was held that the reliance placed by the appellants on the judgment in Gulshan Prakash was misplaced as it was governed by the NCWA, whereas the deceased employee's case was governed by the executive policy.

Finding no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge's order, it was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the deceased employee's son and widow was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Minketan Chandra & Anr. v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.

Case No. : WA No. 964 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Yogesh Kumar Chandra, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order