Sympathy No Ground To Direct Compassionate Appointment In Contravention of Governing Circular: Chhattisgarh High Court

The High Court was considering a writ appeal filed under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006), challenging the order of the Single Judge upholding the dismissal of compassionate appointment request.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held, “The existence of an earning member in the family disentitles the claimant from consideration under the compassionate appointment scheme. The plea of financial hardship has been raised in a general manner without any cogent material to demonstrate acute indigence warranting deviation from the applicable policy. Sympathy or hardship, howsoever genuine, cannot be a ground to direct compassionate appointment in contravention of the governing circular.”

The Bench also reiterated, “The foundational principle governing compassionate appointment is well settled, namely that such 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 in force on the date of death of the employee alone governs the claim, and subsequent amendments or circulars cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly so provided.”

Advocate Yogesh Kumar Chandra represented the Appellants while Advocate Vaibhav Shukla represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The father of the first appellant and husband of the second appellant, namely late Lakhan Lal Chandra, while working as a Subordinate Engineer in the establishment of the SECL, died due to a sudden illness. He was survived by his wife (second appellant), son (first appellant) and another son. The name of the dependent (first appellant) was proposed for employment on the ground that his mother was working as a temporary employee i.e. Teacher in Vidyut Gruh Higher Secondary School, drawing a salary of Rs 42,304 and also receiving pension emoluments to the tune of Rs 12,228.

The claim of the appellants was denied on the ground that the deceased employee’s wife (one of the dependents) was already in service; therefore, the employment of an additional dependent would not be considered. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge vide the impugned order. Hence, the appeal was filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the Single Judge had rightly relied upon the Circular/Memorandum dated March 13, 1981, which governs 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.

“The mere fact that the deceased was initially appointed in the non-executive cadre or that he was subsequently reverted does not, by itself, invalidate the application of the executive policy, particularly when the respondents have consistently treated the case as one governed by the executive circular”, it added.

The Bench noted that Clause (vii) of the Circular dated March 13, 1981 stipulated that a compassionate appointment cannot be granted where one dependent of the deceased employee is already in employment. The Bench found that the mother of the first Petitioner was employed as a teacher. It was further noticed that the policy did not draw any distinction between temporary or permanent employment, nor did it restrict the embargo only to employment under SECL.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench held that the Single Judge had correctly followed the settled principles of law governing compassionate appointment.

Cause Title: Minketan Chandra v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:805-DB)

Click here to read/download Order