HC Explains: Compassionate Appointment can be sought only within Reasonable Time, Read Judgment

The Chhatisgarh High Court upheld the rejection of a petition seeking employment on compassionate grounds, emphasizing that such appointments are exceptional reliefs tied to immediate financial distress and cannot be claimed decades after the death of a government servant. The Court scrutinized whether the petitioner’s long delay and procedural lapses justified granting the benefit, sending a clear signal on strict adherence to policy timelines.

The controversy began when the petitioner, whose father, a government Circle Coordinator in Chhattisgarh, passed away in 2005, applied for a compassionate appointment only in 2019, citing delays caused by a dispute between his father’s two wives. The petitioner argued that his minor status at the time of the father’s death and subsequent legal disputes prevented timely application.

Despite a prior direction from the High Court to reconsider the claim, the State authorities rejected the petition citing inordinate delay and policy limits. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the family continued to face severe financial hardship, asserting that equity and justice warranted relief.

The Court observed that compassionate appointments are not vested rights but are meant to provide immediate succour to families in sudden distress. Highlighting the policy’s intent, the Court stated, “Equity cannot be invoked to perpetuate stale claims, and the grant of compassionate appointment must strictly conform to the eligibility conditions, timelines, and procedural requirements laid down in the policy.” 

Noting that the petitioner filed his claim 14 years after the death of the employee, and that no documentary evidence supported the asserted delay due to familial disputes, the Court found no fault in the rejection. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Nijesh Chauhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary,  & Ors.
Case No.: WPS No. 2604 of 2023
Coram: Hon'ble Amitendra Kishore Prasad,
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Sumit Singh Rathore
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Arpit Agrawal,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com