Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23960
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Shrikant Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WA No. 781 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vedant Shadangi
For the Respondents: Praveen Das, Shreyansh Mehta
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a relief to tide over sudden financial crisis, granted strictly per the applicable scheme. Employment of other family members is a valid ground for rejection, regardless of separate residence or ration cards.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Nature of Right - It is an exception to general recruitment rules intended to provide immediate financial assistance to a family in distress and is not a vested or hereditary right of the dependent. (Para 14, 16, 20)
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility and Scheme - Entitlement must be determined strictly in accordance with the applicable scheme; mere death of an employee in harness does not automatically entitle a family member to appointment. (Para 15, 19)
(C) Compassionate Appointment - Financial Distress - The employment of other family members in government service is a valid consideration for the competent authority to deny appointment; separate residence or separate ration cards do not override the governing policy or create an enforceable right. (Para 17, 18, 21)
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to compassionate appointment despite his brothers being employed in government service, on the ground that they reside separately.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in filing appeal to advance substantial justice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. factual background of the claim for compassionate appointment and its rejection. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments regarding financial distress versus existing government employment of family members. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is governed strictly by the applicable scheme. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. employment of siblings precludes entitlement to compassionate appointment regardless of separate residence. (Para 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT ON BOARD
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Vedant Shadangi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondent No.1 and Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 & 3.
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the present appeal is barred by a delay of 56 days. Though the matter is listed for orders on the question of default, the appellant has not filed any separate application seeking condonation of the said delay.
3. Ordinarily, an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation cannot be entertained unless the delay is satisfactorily explained and is condoned in accordance with law. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to advance substantial justice, this Court is of the view that the delay of 56 days deserves to be condoned.
4. The delay is neither inordinate nor excessive, and refusal to condone the same at the threshold may result in denial of an opportunity to the appellant to have the matter considered on merits. It is well settled that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal and justice-oriented construction, particularly where no deliberate or mala fide conduct is attributable to the party seeking condonation.
5. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The default pointed out by the Registry stands cured.
6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
7. By way of present writ appeal filed under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the appellant / writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Singe Judge in WPS No. 2402/2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
8. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the appellant’s father, late Shri Ramnihora Pathak, was serving as Sub-Inspector in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) and died in a tragic accident on 28.08.2020 while in service. The appellant, being eligible and qualified (B.E. in Electrical Engineering), applied for compassionate appointment, supported by affidavits executed by his mother Smt. Usha Pathak and his brothers, namely Chandrakant Pathak and Suryakant Pathak, consenting to the grant of such appointment in favour of the appellant. The said application was rejected by the Additional Director, State Agriculture Marketing Board, Raipur (C.G.) vide order dated 02.12.2020 on the ground that the appellant’s siblings are already employed in Government service. Challenging the said order, the appellant has preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No. 2402 of 2021, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25.03.2026.
Hence, this appeal.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition without properly appreciating the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted tha
