Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24440
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Jagriti Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WA No. 730 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Kumar
For the Respondents: SS Baghel, Ghanshyam Patel
Compassionate appointment is a policy-based concession, not a vested right. If the governing policy categorically bars appointment when another family member is in government service, the court cannot grant relief based on actual financial hardship or the separate residence of the employed member.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Family member in government service - Clause 6A of the policy dated 29.08.2016 stipulates that if any member of the family of the deceased government servant is already in government service, another member is not eligible. This is a categorical bar regardless of whether the employed member provides actual financial support or resides separately. (Para 14, 15)
(B) Nature of Compassionate Appointment - Not a Vested Right - It is a concession intended to enable the family to tide over a sudden crisis and must be governed strictly by the parameters of the applicable scheme; equitable considerations or financial hardship cannot override express policy terms. (Para 10, 13, 17)
(C) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Refusal of compassionate appointment in accordance with a valid eligibility condition in the governing policy does not constitute a violation of the right to life or livelihood as there is no indefeasible right to such appointment. (Para 18)
Issues: Whether the appellant is eligible for compassionate appointment despite her sister being in government service, given that the sister resides separately and provides no financial support.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on sufficient cause. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. rejection of compassionate appointment due to a family member being in government service. (Para 5) |
| 3. conflict between actual financial hardship and strict policy adherence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. compassionate appointment as a policy-based concession rather than a vested right. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. absolute bar of appointment if any family member is in government service per clause 6a. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. policy terms override equitable considerations and do not violate article 21. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. affirmation of the single judge's order and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Heard Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants Also heard Shri SS Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for respondent-2.
1. Present Writ Appeal is filed with the following prayer:
“It is, therefore, prayed that, the Ho’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set-aside the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in WPS No.7781/2022 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and grant compensate appointment to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. ”
2. Present intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.7781 of 2022 (Jagriti Patel V. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by respondent No.2, rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that her sister, namely, Reetu Patel, is already in government service, has been dismissed. Along with the appeal, I.A. No.01/2026 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. It is submitted that the appellant belongs to an economically weaker family and, after the death of her father, has been facing financial hardship. It is further submitted that the appellant required time to arrange the necessary expenses for obtaining the certified copy of the order and for taking appropriate legal steps for filing the appeal. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
4. Having considered the explanation furnished by the appellant for the delay and being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown, I.A. No.01/2026 is allowed.
Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the daughter of late Narayan Patel, who died while in service. After the death of her father, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment on the ground that the family was facing financial hardship and that she was required to support herself and her widowed mother. Her application was rejected by order dated 23.06.2022 on the ground that her sister, namely, Reetu Patel, is working as a government teacher at Higher Secondary School, Gidhpuri, Janpad Panchayat Palari, District Baloda Bazaar. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred W.P.(S) No.7781 of 2022 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 10.04.2026, dismissed the writ petition holding that in view of Clause 6A of the compassionate appointment policy dated 29.08.2016, if any member of the family of the deceased government servant is already in government service, another member of the family is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai , W.A. No.33 of 2022, decided on 18.02.2022. Hence, the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single
