Chhattisgarh HC Division Bench Upholds Compassionate Appointment Order Despite Mother's Government Employment
The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that rejecting a compassionate appointment claim solely because the deceased employee's mother held a low-paid post, without examining actual family hardship, was arbitrary and defeated the scheme's humanitarian purpose.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, on 12 May 2026 dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, and affirmed a Single Judge order directing compassionate appointment for Mukund Hela. Hela's father, late Kailash Ram, had died in harness on 3 September 2017 while serving as a Sanitary Worker under the Municipal Corporation. The Corporation had rejected Hela's application solely because his mother was employed as a Safai Karmachari, invoking Clause 6 of the State's compassionate appointment policy dated 14 June 2013. The Division Bench held that mechanical application of the exclusion clause, without any examination of the family's actual financial condition, rendered the rejection arbitrary and unsustainable.
The Dispute Before the Division Bench
After his father's death, Mukund Hela submitted an application dated 27 November 2017 seeking compassionate appointment. The Municipal Corporation rejected the claim on 30 May 2018 on the ground that his mother was already in Government service as a Safai Karmachari. Hela's representation to the Director pointed out that his mother was due to retire only in 2028 and that her income was insufficient to support the entire family. The Director, vide communication dated 17 July 2018, forwarded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration. Despite this, no final decision was taken.
Hela also submitted a fresh application dated 27 June 2018 and drew attention to two individuals — Surendra Bahadur Singh and Suraj Kirwar — who had allegedly been granted compassionate appointment by the Corporation even though their mothers were in Government service. He argued that denying him the same benefit amounted to hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
After years of inaction, Hela filed WPS No. 9376 of 2023 before the Single Judge. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated 28 February 2026, quashed the rejection order dated 30 May 2018, and directed the Corporation to grant compassionate appointment without raising any objection on account of the mother's employment. The Corporation, arrayed as Respondent No. 3 before the Single Judge, challenged that order in WA No. 429 of 2026.
The Corporation's Case: Policy as a Complete Code
Counsel for the appellant-Corporation argued that the Policy dated 14 June 2013 is a complete code and that Clause 6 expressly bars compassionate appointment where any family member of the deceased employee is already in Government service. He submitted that the Single Judge had effectively rewritten the policy by directing appointment in disregard of this mandatory disqualification.
The Corporation pointed to the deliberate omission, in the 2013 policy, of a discretionary provision that had existed under the earlier 2003 guidelines — a provision that had allowed consideration of cases where the earning member's income was insufficient for the family's sustenance. The omission, it was argued, reflected a conscious legislative intent to prohibit any such relaxation.
The Corporation also filed a verification and affidavit dated 24 February 2026 asserting that Surendra Bahadur Singh and Suraj Kirwar had never in fact been appointed by the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, thereby disputing the very foundation of Hela's parity argument. On delay, the Corporation submitted that the rejection order of 30 May 2018 was challenged only in 2023 — more than five years later — and that this delay itself demolished the claim of immediate financial hardship, which is the bedrock of compassionate appointment.
Reliance was placed on Division Bench and Full Bench decisions of the Chhattisgarh High Court in State of Chhattisgarh v. Purendra Kumar Sinha and WA No. 236 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Umesh Thakur), as well as Supreme Court judgments in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, for the proposition that compassionate appointment must strictly conform to the governing policy and sympathy cannot override the mandate of law.
Hela's Defence: Meagre Income and Discriminatory Denial
Counsel for Hela supported the Single Judge's order and contended that the mother's income as a Safai Karmachari was extremely meagre and insufficient to maintain the entire family after the death of the sole breadwinner. He argued that the rejection order dated 30 May 2018 was passed mechanically, without any examination of the family's actual financial condition or the degree of dependency of the writ petitioner on the deceased.
It was further submitted that the Single Judge had not directed unconditional appointment but had merely directed reconsideration, and that no prejudice was caused to the Corporation by such a direction. Counsel also argued that compassionate appointment schemes, being beneficial in nature, deserve liberal interpretation to advance social justice rather than frustrate legitimate claims on technical grounds.
The State counsel also supported the Single Judge's order, submitting that no positive direction for appointment had been issued and that no interference was warranted.
How the Division Bench Reasoned
The Division Bench began by acknowledging the settled legal position: compassionate appointment is not a vested right, nor an alternative mode of recruitment. The scheme exists to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness leaving dependants in financial distress. The authorities must adopt a pragmatic and purposive approach, keeping in view the family's financial condition, rather than rejecting claims on mere technicalities.
The Bench found that the Single Judge had correctly identified that the family lost its principal breadwinner and that the mother's employment as a Safai Karmachari — a low-paid post — could not, by itself, be treated as an absolute circumstance to non-suit Hela without examining the actual financial condition and dependency of the family members.
On the parity argument, the Bench noted that Hela had specifically brought to the authorities' attention the cases of Surendra Bahadur Singh and Suraj Kirwar. While the Corporation disputed this, the Bench found that no material had been placed before it to conclusively demonstrate that the Single Judge's findings on this point were perverse or wholly unsupported by the record.
The Bench addressed the Corporation's reliance on the 2013 policy and the precedents in Purendra Kumar Sinha and Umesh Thakur directly. It accepted the general proposition that compassionate appointment must ordinarily be governed by the prevailing policy and that a court cannot rewrite the scheme's terms. However, it held that every case must be examined on its own facts. A writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not stripped of the power to interfere where the decision-making process suffers from arbitrariness, non-consideration of relevant factors, or mechanical exercise of discretion.
The Bench held that the Single Judge had found the authorities rejected Hela's claim without proper consideration of the actual financial hardship suffered by the family and without adverting to the surrounding circumstances placed on record. That finding, the Division Bench concluded, was well-founded.
On the question of whether a family member's low-paid employment conclusively ends financial distress, the Bench was clear: “Merely because one member of the family is engaged on a low-paid post would not, in every case, conclusively establish that the family has ceased to suffer financial distress.” The scheme of compassionate appointment, being a welfare measure, requires meaningful and contextual consideration of each claim.
On delay, the Bench found that the record showed continuous representations and pursuit of the claim by Hela before the competent authorities. The communications issued by the authorities for reconsideration indicated that the grievance remained under active consideration. The Single Judge therefore could not be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in entertaining the writ petition despite the gap between the rejection order and the filing of the writ petition.
The Bench also noted that the Single Judge had not directed automatic or unconditional appointment dehors the governing policy. The impugned order reflected consciousness of the Supreme Court's law on compassionate appointment and was passed after due consideration of the facts. The Division Bench found no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity in the Single Judge's order warranting interference.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed WA No. 429 of 2026 and affirmed the order dated 28 February 2026 passed by the Single Judge in WPS No. 9376 of 2023. The direction to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur — to grant compassionate appointment to Mukund Hela following due procedure and formalities, without raising any objection on account of the mother's employment — stands. There was no order as to costs.