Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24565
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Smita Tirkey – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 6155 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chandrasen Chouhan
For the Respondents: Luv Sharma
Compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate sudden financial crisis caused by the death of a sole breadwinner; if another family member is already in government service, the applicant is ineligible as the family is not considered to be in such crisis.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Availability of earning member - Where a family member is already employed in government service, the applicant is not entitled to compassionate appointment as the primary objective of providing immediate financial relief to tide over a sudden crisis is not met. (Para 5, 6)
(B) Policy Adherence - Statutory Rules - Rejection of application based on existing rules regarding earning members and income thresholds is valid and does not constitute arbitrariness or illegality. (Para 3, 8)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment despite her mother being a government employee.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks compassionate appointment, but the state opposes it based on the mother's government employment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner is ineligible for compassionate appointment due to the presence of an earning member in the family. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. the purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate financial crisis, which is absent when a family member is in government service. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. the petition is dismissed as it lacks merit. (Para 9) |
Order on Board
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by Respondent No.4, whereby her application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her father, Late Agastu Tirkey, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner Late Agastu Tirkey, was serving as Head Constable in the respondent department since 14.10.1981 and died in harness on 12.08.2011. After his death, the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the same is rejected on the ground that her mother is employed in Government service and working as A.N.M. in Government Hospital, Saraipali. Learned counsel further submits that the mother of the petitioner has given her consent and categorically stated that she has no objection if the petitioner is granted appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has rightly been rejected by the competent authority in accordance with Clause 3(08) of the Rules dated 29/06/2009 . It is submitted that, as per the said provision, where an earning member is available amongst the widow/widower or unmarried son of the deceased Government servant and their total annual income, excluding the family pension, exceeds ₹60,000/- per annum, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the widow/widower, son, daughter or any other family member. Learned State counsel further submits that, in the present case, the mother of the petitioner is employed in Government service and working as A.N.M. in Government Hospital, Saraipali and is an earning member of the family. Hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned dated 28/11/2011.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition.
5. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner is employed in Government service and is working as an A.N.M. at Government Hospital, Saraipali. She is, therefore, an earning member of the family. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision and the undisputed fact that an earning member is already available in the family, the petitioner is not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. Consequently, the competent authority has rightly rejected the petitioner's claim by order dated 28.11.2011.
6. Another aspect which cannot be brushed aside is the fact that the basic object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government employee so as to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the sole breadwinner. In the present case, the petitioner's mother was already in Government service at the time of the death of the petitioner's father. The petitioner's claim was considered and rejected in accordance with the prevailing policy. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out.
7. The Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Umesh Thakur (WA No.236 of 2022, decided on 07.07.2023), while placing reliance upon the Larger Bench/Full Bench decision of this Court, reiterated the legal position and held as under in paragraph 4:
“A careful perusal of the order passed by the full Bench would show that the full Bench of this Court has clearly held that no such in
