Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24979
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Sinha – Respondent
WA No. 687 of 2026 | W.P.(S) No. 626 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Naha Roy
For the Respondents: Anadi Sharma
Compassionate appointment, while not a vested right, cannot be arbitrarily denied to a candidate who applied promptly and was considered alongside others who were appointed, based on a subsequent claim of non-availability of vacancies.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Availability of Vacancy - Denial of appointment to one candidate while granting it to others in the same consideration batch on the ground of non-availability of vacancy is arbitrary, especially when the application was made promptly and a vacancy existed at the time of application. (Para 12, 13, 15)
(B) Administrative Policy - Outsourcing of Posts - Subsequent change in policy or decision to outsource non-core activities cannot defeat a legitimate claim for compassionate appointment if the candidate was already called for consideration along with others who were appointed. (Para 13, 14)
Issues: Whether the respondent is entitled to compassionate appointment despite the Bank's claim of non-availability of sanctioned vacancies for the post of Office Attendant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of compassionate appointment claim and lower court order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. argument that appointment requires vacancy and policy change. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. argument against arbitrary denial and for sympathetic consideration. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court validates the existence of vacancy and prompt application. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. subsequent policy changes cannot justify arbitrary denial of appointment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. writ appeal dismissed and lower court order affirmed. (Para 16 , 17) |
Order on Board
14:43:10 +0530
12/08/2026
1. Heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Anadi Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This writ appeal, under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, is directed against the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 626 of 2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed, the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Regional Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, was set aside and the appellants were directed to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent against any available Class-IV post within 90 days.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the father of the respondent, Late Dakornath Sinha, was working as an Office Attendant in the appellant- Bank and died in harness on 02.04.2019. The respondent submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 24.05.2019, within two months of his father's death, and thereafter submitted the application in the prescribed format on 30.06.2021. He was subsequently called for consideration along with eight other candidates seeking compassionate appointment. While the other eight candidates were granted appointment, the respondent was not considered on the ground that the post of Office Attendant was no longer being created as a regular cadre post. Thereafter, vide communication dated 22.07.2022, the respondent's claim was rejected on the ground of non-existence of a sanctioned vacancy for the post of Office Attendant.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the respondent preferred W.P.(S) No. 626 of 2023 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 13.05.2026, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 30.09.2022, holding, inter alia, that at the time when the respondent submitted his application, a vacancy on the post of Office Attendant subsisted and, having applied promptly within two months of his father's death, his claim could not be defeated by the subsequent assertion of non-availability of vacancy. The learned Single Judge further noticed that out of nine candidates called for consideration, eight had been granted compassionate appointment and, accordingly, directed the appellants to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent against any available Class-IV post within 90 days.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in directing compassionate appointment to the respondent despite the admitted position that there was no sanctioned vacancy available on the post of Office Attendant. It is submitted that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and can be granted only in accordance with the applicable scheme and against an available vacancy. The death of an employee does not, by itself, confer any vested or hereditary right upon his dependent to seek appointment against the post held by the deceased employee, nor does it oblige the employer to create a vacancy for such appointment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the appellant-Bank had already adopted the recommendations of the Mitra Committee, pursuant to which non-core activities, including sweeping, cleaning, housekeeping and other ancillary services, were permitted to be outsourced and, consequently, fresh regular recruitment to t
