Chhattisgarh High Court: Acceptance Of Compassionate Appointment Even Under Protest Amounts To Exhaustion Of One-Time Benefit

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that acceptance of appointment, even under protest, amounts to exhaustion of the one-time benefit and there cannot be endless negotiation or choice in such appointments.

The Court was considering a Writ-Petition against an order whereby the Petitioner was offered compassionate appointment to the post of Gardener.

The single bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey observed,".....once the petitioner has been appointed even under protest to the post of Gardener (Mali), the claim for up-gradation to the post of Driver is not legally sustainable. Acceptance of appointment, even under protest, amounts to exhaustion of the one-time benefit. There cannot be endless negotiation or choice in such appointments, which are an exception to the general rule of recruitment."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Ravi Bhagat while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Prateek Tiwari.

Facts of the Case

The father of the Petitioner who was working as a Chowkidar in the Public Works Department died in 2018 and thereafter, the Petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment. Ultimately, he was issued an Appointment Order to the post of Gardener (Class-IV post) which he refused to give consent for, and it was submitted that subsequently, Respondent No.3 recommended the Petitioner’s name for the post of Driver. However, despite such recommendation and eligibility, he was not granted the appointment to the post of Driver, and instead, the appointment order was issued for the post of Gardener.

Counsel for the Petitioner, relying on a Circular, argued that the dependent of a deceased Class-IV employee may be appointed to a Class-III post on compassionate grounds if he or she is educationally qualified.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent relied on Supreme Court's decision in I.G. (Karmik) and Others v. Prahlad Mani Tripathi, (2007) wherein it was held that once the right of compassionate appointment is exercised and exhausted, no further or second consideration for higher post arises.

Reasoning

The Court accepted the submission of the Counsel for the Respondent and observed, "Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession granted under service jurisprudence to mitigate the immediate financial crisis faced by the family of the deceased government servant. It cannot be treated as a mode of regular employment nor can it be pressed for higher entitlement beyond the scope of the scheme or guidelines."

Noting that the appointment under the scheme is subject to the availability of posts, administrative discretion, and satisfaction of other procedural requirements, the Court held that once the Petitioner has been appointed even under protest to the post of Gardener (Mali), the claim for up-gradation to the post of Driver is not legally sustainable.

"......compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but an exception carved out by administrative policy to provide immediate support. Judicial intervention in such matters is limited, and the courts are not expected to substitute administrative decisions with their own preferences," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Abhinay Das vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025:CGHC:18944)

Click here to read/ download Order