Compassionate appointment, being a social welfare measure, should be interpreted purposively. Denial based on hyper-technical grounds, such as the absence of a formal regularization order despite long service and a pending recommendation for regularization, is unsustainable.

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1 Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/appellants as well as Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

2 By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the State / appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, have challenged the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5394 of 2017 (Khilesh Kumar Malakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein has been allowed by the learned Single Judge.

3 Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the father of the writ petitioner / respondent was working on the post of "Gangman" in permanent gang since 1984 under the appellant No.4 Public Works Department. During his service tenure, he died in harness on 04.07.2008. After death of his father, the writ petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment in view of the circulars of the State Government dated 10.06.2003 & 27.04.2006, but the respondent authorities failed to decide the application made by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.261/2012 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2012 with direction to the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities but the respondent authorities did not pay any attention in this regard and kept the matter in abeyance and the petitioner kept on representing the respondents, but ultimately the appellant No. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner citing that in view of the circular dated 27.04.2006, since the father of petitioner namely Milan was not a permanent gangman in work-charged establishment, as such the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing WPS No. 5394 of 2017, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25.06.2025 directing the respondent authorities to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from that day. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been filed by the State / appellants.

4 Learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State / appellants submitted that the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is legally unsustainable as it overlooks the binding policy framework governing compassionate appointment. The State Government’s policy dated 10.06.2003 clearly provides that compassionate appointment is admissible only to dependents of those employees who were permanent in contingency/work-charged establishment and died in harness. Further clarification issued vide instructions dated 27.04.2006 specifically excludes dependents of unskilled labourers who were not regularized in the work-charged contingency establishment. In the present case, it is undisputed that the father of the writ petitioner was working as a daily wage labourer/gangman and had not been regularized at the time of his death on 04.07.2008. The subsequent recommendation dated 23.08.2008 for regularization is inconsequential, as no right had crystallized prior to his demise. Compassionate appointment being a policy-based concession and not a vested right, the learned Single Judge erred in diluting the express eligibility conditions stipulated by the State.

5 It is further submitted that the nomenclature “permanent unskilled labour” is merely an accounting classification under the PWD Manual and does not confer the status of a regular civil post holder within the meaning of the applicable Pension Ru