Employment Of Family Member On Low-Paid Post Can't Be Ground To Deny Compassionate Appointment: Chhattisgarh HC
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely because another family member is employed, without assessing the family's actual financial distress, especially when the policy's humanitarian object is to provide immediate relief.
Background Facts
The father of the petitioner was working as a Sanitary Worker under the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur. He died while in service, leaving behind his wife, three sons, and one daughter who were all dependent on his income. After his father's death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment as per the state policy. His application was rejected on the ground that his mother was already employed as a Safai Karmachari. Then petitioner made a representation to the Director, who forwarded the matter back for reconsideration.
The petitioner submitted another application citing that similarly situated persons were granted compassionate appointment despite their mothers being in government service. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. A Single Judge allowed his petition and quashed the rejection order. It was directed to the Corporation to grant him compassionate appointment.
Aggrieved by the order, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation filed the writ appeal.
It was argued by the appellant that the governing policy dated 14.06.2013 bars compassionate appointment if any family member is already in government service. It was further submitted that under the earlier policy of the year 2003, there existed a discretionary provision enabling consideration of cases where the income of the earning member was insufficient for sustenance of the family. However, it was omitted in the Policy dated 14.06.2013 with a clear legislative intent to strictly regulate compassionate appointments and prohibit relaxation once a family member is already in Government employment.
Further the precedent in State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Purendra Kumar Sinha was relied upon wherein it was held that once one family member of the deceased employee is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars compassionate appointment, then writ Court cannot direct enquiry regarding dependency or financial insufficiency as the same would amount to rewriting the policy.
On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that the mother was employed as a Safai Karmachari, but her income was extremely meagre and insufficient to maintain the entire family after the death of the sole breadwinner. It was further contended that the authorities adopted a hyper-technical approach which defeated the beneficial object of compassionate appointment.
It was argued that the rejection order was passed without examining the actual financial condition of the family. The respondent further submitted that similarly situated persons had been granted compassionate appointment.
Findings and Observations of the Court
The order passed by the Single judge was relied upon wherein it was held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment. It is intended solely to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee. Such appointment is a humanitarian concession meant to help the family come over sudden crisis. The competent authority must assess the actual financial condition and dependency of the family, and technical application of eligibility conditions should not defeat the object of the scheme.
It was noted by the Division Bench that the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected solely because his mother was serving as a Safai Karmachari. It was further observed that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but the scheme was framed with a humanitarian object to provide immediate succour to a family in financial distress. Therefore, authorities are required to adopt a pragmatic and purposive approach instead of rejecting claims on mere technicalities.
It was further observed that the family lost its principal breadwinner and the mere employment of the mother by itself could not be treated as an absolute circumstance to deny the claim without examining the actual financial condition.
It was held that merely because one family member is engaged on a low-paid post would not, in every case, establish that the family has ceased to suffer financial distress. The scheme of compassionate appointment, being a welfare measure, requires a meaningful and contextual consideration of the claim. It was concluded by the Division Bench that the Single Judge's order did not suffer from any illegality.
With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was upheld and the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Name : Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur vs. Mukund Hela & Ors.
Case No. : WA No. 429 of 2026
Counsel for the Appellant : Bhupendra Singh
Counsel for the Respondents : Anukul Biswas, Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General