Latest Legal Developments.

15-Year Delay Fatal to Compassionate Appointment Claim, Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Dismissal

The court reiterated that the objective is to provide immediate financial aid to a family in sudden crisis, not to grant a post after the family has survived for over a decade.

BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH – The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a recent judgment, has dismissed a writ appeal seeking compassionate appointment, ruling that an inordinate delay of nearly 15 years in applying for the post defeats the very purpose of such a provision. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru affirmed a single-judge order, emphasizing that compassionate employment is an exception meant to help a family tide over an immediate financial crisis following the death of a government employee, not a vested right to be claimed years later.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Ku. Smriti Verma, sought a compassionate appointment following the death of her mother, Smt. Manisha Verma, who was an Assistant Teacher. Her mother passed away in service on December 9, 2000. At the time of her mother's death, the appellant was a minor, born on July 30, 1997.

After completing her Class XII examinations in 2013 and attaining the age of majority in 2015, the appellant submitted an application for compassionate appointment on August 5, 2015. This was nearly one and a half decades after her mother's demise. The department rejected her application on August 29, 2017, leading her to file a writ petition which was subsequently dismissed by a learned Single Judge on April 9, 2025. This dismissal prompted the current writ appeal.

Arguments from Both Sides

The appellant's counsel argued that the authorities had incorrectly applied a 2003 policy. It was contended that the policy in effect at the time of the employee's death in 2000 was from 1994, which allowed a dependent to apply for the appointment after attaining the age of majority. Therefore, the application filed in 2015, shortly after turning 18, was within the permissible timeframe. The counsel also highlighted the family's dire circumstances, stating that the appellant's father had deserted the family and remarried, forcing the children to live with their elderly maternal grandmother.

Conversely, the State counsel defended the Single Judge's decision, arguing that it was legally sound and did not warrant interference. The core of their argument rested on the principle that the family had managed to survive for 15 years without the appointment, indicating that the immediate crisis had passed.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedents

The Division Bench agreed with the findings of the Single Judge, underscoring the fundamental objective of compassionate appointment schemes. The court noted, "The provision of compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to the families who have experienced a sudden hardship. The petitioner shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the date of death of her deceased mother."

The bench heavily relied on a Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2022) , which established key principles: - Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public service recruitment. - Its purpose is purely humanitarian, aimed at saving a family from penury and enabling them to "tide over the sudden crisis." - The objective is not to guarantee a post for the family, especially one held by the deceased.

The court quoted the Supreme Court's observation: "to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground... she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee."

Applying this precedent, the High Court concluded that since the family had already survived for such a long period, the "sudden crisis" had been overcome, and the objective of the compassionate appointment scheme was no longer applicable.

Final Decision

Finding no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's order, the Division Bench held that the appeal was devoid of merit. "Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that the same is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court," the judgment stated.

Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed, solidifying the legal position that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right after a significant lapse of time.