Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24655
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Dileshwar Panigrahi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WA No. 736 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. Jayant K. Rao
For the Respondents: Prasun Kumar Bhaduri
Compassionate appointment must be granted strictly according to the prevailing policy; if the policy bars appointment when another family member is in government service, the court cannot order a dependency inquiry as it would amount to impermissibly rewriting the policy.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Employment of family member - Where the applicable policy explicitly bars appointment if another family member is already in government service, the claim cannot be considered regardless of whether that member provides financial support to the family. (Para 13, 15)
(B) Judicial Review - Policy Interpretation - Rewriting Policy - The writ court cannot direct an inquiry into financial dependency or actual support if the policy prohibits such consideration, as doing so would amount to impermissibly re-writing or re-framing the terms of the policy. (Para 11, 14)
Issues: Whether the claim for compassionate appointment can be considered by inquiring into financial dependency when the applicable policy bars such appointment if another family member is already in government service.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the compassionate appointment claim and the initial dismissal by the single judge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding financial dependency versus strict adherence to government policy. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. examination of the applicable policy clause 6a and the full bench ruling in umesh thakur. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. policy restrictions on compassionate appointment override claims of actual financial dependency. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. confirmation of the single judge's order and dismissal of the writ appeal. (Para 17 , 18) |
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2592/2022 (Dileshwar Panigrahi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed.
3. Brief facts of the case, as projected before the learned Single Judge, are that the appellant/writ petitioner’s mother, namely, Manvati Panigrahi, who was serving as an Assistant Teacher under the respondent Department, died in harness on 04.05.2021. The appellant/writ petitioner, being the elder son of the deceased Government servant, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 20.08.2021. However, respondent No.3, vide order dated 22.03.2022, rejected his claim on the ground that his younger brother, namely, Kamlesh Panigrahi, was already employed in Government service.
4. The case set up by the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that although his younger brother was working as a Ward Boy in the Health Department, he had been residing separately from the appellant/writ petitioner and the family for several years and was not extending any financial assistance to them. It was, therefore, contended that the mere employment of the younger brother in Government service could not, by itself, disentitle the appellant/writ petitioner from consideration for compassionate appointment, particularly when no financial support was being provided by him. On the aforesaid premise, the appellant/writ petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 22.03.2022 and a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for compassionate appointment.
5. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the pleadings and material placed on record, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 01.05.2026, which has given rise to the present intra-Court appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the appellant’s younger brother, though employed in Government service, has been living separately and has not been extending any financial assistance to the family. It is contended that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased Government servant and, therefore, the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner ought not to have been rejected solely on the ground that his younger brother was in Government employment. It is further submitted that the competent authority ought to have examined the actual financial condition and dependency of the family before rejecting the claim. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and for appropriate relief in favour of the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his submissions, has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 12.05.2026 passed by this Court in W.A. No.429/2026, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur v. Mukund Hela and others , and submits that the said decision supports the case of the appellant.
8. On
