Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Belated Compassionate Appointment Quest

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has dismissed a writ appeal filed by a young man seeking compassionate appointment nearly fourteen years after his father’s death in harness, reaffirming that such appointments are meant to provide immediate succour rather than serve as a remedy for long-stale claims.

A Minor’s Long Road to Redress

Nijesh Chauhan’s father, a Circle Coordinator at Gharghoda in Raigarh district, passed away on 19 February 2005. At the time, the appellant was a minor. His mother, facing ill health and limited education, informed the authorities of her inability to seek employment and requested consideration for her son once he attained majority. A dispute between two wives of the deceased led to civil litigation that ended only in a 2019 compromise. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 12 June 2019. The claim was rejected on grounds of delay; subsequent representations and a prior writ petition also failed.

The present writ appeal, WA No. 245 of 2026, challenged the learned Single Judge’s order dated 22 January 2026 dismissing the petition.

Appellant’s Plea of Bona Fide Impediments

Counsel for the appellant contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor unexplained. He argued that minority, the inter se dispute between the deceased’s two wives, lack of guidance from authorities, and repeated representations justified a relaxed approach. The family, having lost its sole breadwinner, continued to face severe financial distress, and no monetary benefits had been granted in the interim.

State’s Defence of Policy Timelines

The State countered that the claim suffered from gross, unexplained and inordinate delay of about eighteen years from the date of death. Compassionate appointment, it emphasised, is not a vested right but an exceptional measure to tide over sudden financial crisis. The applicable policy, including the 2019 notification, prescribes strict time limits that cannot be extended indefinitely. The civil dispute between the wives and the appellant’s minority did not absolve the family of the duty to approach authorities promptly.

Court Applies Settled Principles from Supreme Court

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal examined the matter in light of the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Tinku v. State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3292). The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment policies exist to grant immediate relief to families in distress and that equity cannot be invoked to perpetuate stale claims. The attainment of majority by a dependent does not revive a time-barred application.

The Bench noted that the appellant attained majority eleven years after his father’s death and filed his first substantive application only in 2019, far beyond the five-year outer limit prescribed even under exceptional circumstances in the State policy.

Key Observations

The judgment records several telling observations:

“The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity…”

“As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service… It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny… with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution…”

“The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family.”

“Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.”

Appeal Dismissed: Implications for Future Claims

Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal. The ruling underscores that authorities and courts must strictly enforce the temporal limits built into compassionate appointment schemes. Families facing the sudden loss of a breadwinner are expected to act with diligence; prolonged inaction defeats the very objective of these welfare measures.

The decision serves as a clear reminder that courts will not issue directions compelling the State to grant appointments decades after the triggering event merely on grounds of subsequent hardship.