SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Babita Rangi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 2777 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Pandey
For the Respondents: Mr. Arpit Agrawal

Compassionate appointment should not be denied on mechanical grounds, such as expired relaxation periods or past involvement in criminal cases where the applicant was acquitted, as the primary objective is to alleviate the immediate financial distress of a deceased employee's family.

Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Deceased employee - Denial of appointment - Validity - Where the petitioner had complied with requisite formalities including medical examination and character verification, the denial of compassionate appointment citing expiration of relaxation periods or minor procedural delays is unsustainable, especially when the family of the deceased faced financial distress and the objective of the policy is to alleviate such hardship. (Paras 6, 9, 10, 11)

(B) Character Verification - Criminal antecedents - Acquittal - Effect of acquittal in criminal cases against a candidate for government employment - Mere pendency of a criminal case or past involvement in criminal cases does not automatically disqualify an individual if the candidate is subsequently acquitted or if the act does not involve moral turpitude or affect the integrity of service. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, widow and son of a deceased Inspector, challenged the denial of compassionate appointment for the son (Petitioner No. 2). Despite an initial appointment order and completion of character and physical verification processes, and notwithstanding the son’s acquittal in past criminal cases, the respondents denied the appointment citing medical unfitness (knock-knees/flat-foot), expiration of relaxation periods, and alleged character issues.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to properly evaluate the case in light of the acquittal and the purpose of compassionate appointment, noting that procedural delays attributable to the administration should not prejudice the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the denial of compassionate appointment based on expired government relaxation, perceived medical unfitness, and past criminal history (where the petitioner was acquitted) is legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment exists to provide immediate relief to families of deceased employees; authorities must apply principles of proportionality and examine individual circumstances regarding character verification rather than adopting a mechanical approach to past criminal involvement.

Result: Petition allowed; respondents directed to reconsider the case within 60 days.

Table of Content
1. prayer for enforcement of compassionate appointment based on prior departmental approval. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. court scrutinizes facts noting prior recommendations and procedural hurdles faced by the petitioner. (Para 5 , 6)
3. evaluation of character verification in light of previous criminal cases and mandatory individual scrutiny. (Para 7)
4. right to public employment cannot be denied mechanically based on past history without evidence of moral turpitude. (Para 8)
5. direction for fresh consideration due to the invalidity of the denial order. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

C A V Order

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to give compassionate appointment and joining to the petitioner No.2 Apoorv Rangi on the post of ASI (Ministerial) in compliance of earlier order dated 16.09.2021 passed by respondent No.2 DGP PHQ Raipur (Annexure P/4).

(iii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to give full salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioner No.2 on the post of ASI (M) for which the petitioner No.2 is entitled for.

(iv) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to give suitable compensation to the petitioners for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by them as also cost of the litigation.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court seeking indulgence for enforcement and compliance of the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by respondent No. 2, Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, regarding grant of compassionate appointment. The husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, namely Late Jitendra Singh Rangi, was serving as an Inspector in the Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D.), PHQ, Raipur, and unfortunately died in harness on 14.12.2019, leaving the family in financial distress. Thereafter, petitioner No. 2 submitted an application dated 16.06.2020 seeking compassionate appointment, and petitioner No. 1, being his mother, also submitted an application supporting and requesting appointment of petitioner No. 2 on compassionate grounds. Pursuant to consideration of the said applications, an appointment order dated 16.09.2021 was issued in favour of petitioner No. 2 by the DGP, PHQ, Raipur, and consequential steps were undertaken, including issuance of a letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Raipur, for medical examination of petitioner No. 2. He was further directed to obtain a character verification certificate for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (M), and a duly constituted committee conducted his physical measurement examination for the said post. A medical certificate was also issued declaring him fit and eligible in all respects, however, despite completion of all requisite formalities and fulfillment of prescribed conditions, the petitioners submit that no formal appointment has been granted to petitioner No. 2 till date, compelling them to file the present petition seeking appropriate relief.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the concerned Director General of Police duly approved the appointment of petitioner No. 2 for grant of compassionate appointment vide letter dated 16.09.2021, and pursuant to such approval petitioner No. 2 has already undergone the requisite physical examination and character verification for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) [ASI (M)], the continued failure of the respondents to issue the appointment order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is further contended that several similarly situated candidates have already been granted compassionate appointment to the post o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top