Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Supriya Haldar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 April, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by 2025:CGHC:19593
RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8121 of 2018
• Smt. Supriya Haldar W/o Krishnakant Haldar Aged About 48 Years R/o
New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Cooperative Societies,
Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Registrar Cooperative Societies Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chhattisgarh Rajya Hathkargha Vikash And Vipnan Sahkari Sangh
Maryadit, Raipur, Through Its Managing Director, B- 26, Sector-7, New
Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Secretary Chhattisgarh, Rajya Hathkargha Vikash And Vipnan, Sahkari
Sangh Maryadit, Raipur, B-26, Sector-7, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. President Chhattisgarh, Rajya Hathkargha, Vikash And Vipnan, Sahkari
Sangh Maryadit, Raipur, B-26, Sector-7, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate with
Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur,
Panel Laweyr
For Respondents No. 3 to 5 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava,
Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
30/04/2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow
the petition by quashing Annexure P/11 to P/13 and directing
respondent no. 3 to act upon the board of resolution dated
29.03.2016 as per minute no. 8, since petitioner has passed
class 12th examination as per Annexure P/6 and has
completed 02 years probation in class 4 th, therefore, suitable
direction to comply Annexure P/1 i.e. board of directors
decision to the respondent no. 3 be given, so that petitioner
may get class-III post and also wages for that post from date of
joining soon.
10.2 Costs of the petition be awarded and
10.3 Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may
deems fit, be also awarded."
2. The facts of the present case are that the late K.K. Haldar was working
in the post of Salesman under the respondents. He died in harness on
26.03.2014. The petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment
and at the relevant time, she had the qualification of the 10th Class
pass, therefore, her claim was considered for the Class-IV post. A
resolution was passed by the Board of Directors in the meeting dated
29.03.2016 and the petitioner was offered an appointment to the post
of Peon on the pay scale of Rs.4750-7440 Grade Pay of Rs.1300. It
was also resolved that if the petitioner passes the Class 12th
examination her name would be considered for Class-III post subject to
the availability of vacancy. The order of appointment was issued on
11.04.2016 and thereafter the petitioner joined the post of Peon. The
petitioner filed this petition on 26.11.2018 claiming appointment to
Class-III post on the ground that she has passed the Class 12th
examination and according to the minutes of the meeting of the Board
of Directors, the respondent authorities are under an obligation to
appoint her to a Class-III post.
3. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
argue that the petitioner passed the Class 12 th examination within two
years from the date of appointment and according to the resolution
passed by the Board of Directors dated 29.03.2016, the respondents
are under an obligation to appoint her on a Class-III post. It is also
argued that the petitioner has made representations, but those
representations were rejected. He would further contend that earlier,
writ petitions were filed and directions were issued to decide the claim
of the petitioner afresh. He would also contend that a direction may be
issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the
petitioner for appointment against a Class-III post.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer
appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Chandresh
Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 5
would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner was offered
compassionate appointment according to existing rules. They would
contend that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the
respondents and no assurance was given for appointment on a Class
III post. They would further submit that compassionate appointment
cannot be granted to a post for which the candidate is not eligible. It is
also argued that the petitioner has no right to any particular post of his
or her choice and he/she can only claim to be considered for any post.
It is also submitted that if there was any assurance on the part of the
respondents that cannot be a ground to claim appointment to a Class
III post. In support thereof, they would place reliance on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P.
and Others Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, reported in 1994 Supp (3)
SCC 661. They would further argue that in the policy for
compassionate appointment, there is no such provision to switch the
services from a lower post to a higher post after acquiring higher
qualifications. They would further contend that the petition deserves to
be dismissed. They would further contend that the petition deserves to
be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner namely Mr. K.K. Haldar died in
harness on 26.03.2014. She applied for compassionate appointment.
She was offered the appointment against a Class-IV post and she
accepted it. The order of appointment was issued on 11.04.2016. The
petitioner joined the services. In between, she passed the Class 12 th
examination and thereafter claimed appointment against a Class-III
post. The claim of the petitioner has not been considered by the
respondent authorities.
7. In the matter of Ramesh Kumar Sharma (supra), the respondent was
offered the post of Lower Division Clerk on his prayer for
compassionate appointment, but he refused and claimed the post of
A.P.P. Grade-II for which he had the requisite qualification. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that under the rules of compassionate
appointment, the respondent had no right to any particular post of his
choice and he can only claim to be considered for the post. It is also
observed that the mistake committed by the Government in giving
compassionate appointment earlier to a dependent to the post of A.P.P.
Grade-II can be no ground for the Government in repeating the same
mistake by offering compassionate appointment to a dependent to a
post above the rank of Lower Division Clerk and the State cannot be
permitted to commit the same mistake.
8. In the matter of I.G. (Karmik) and Others Vs. Prahlad Mani Tripathi,
(2007) 6 SCC 162, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the right
of compassionate appointment is exercised and exhausted, no further
or second consideration for a higher post arises.
9. In the matter Anusuiya Oti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. passed
in WPS No. 4324 of 2015, the coordinate bench held that once a
person accepts compassionate appointment, a subsequent claim for
change or up-gradation of the post is impermissible, amounting to an
attempt to claim "endless compassion", which has been disapproved
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. The appointment under the scheme is subject to the availability of the
post, administrative discretion, and satisfaction of other procedural
requirements. Though the petitioner's claim was recommended for the
post of Class-III post, but final appointment was made to the post of
Peon. The petitioner despite disagreement, joined the said post.
11. Applying the ratio laid down in the above-referred cases to the facts of
the present case, once the petitioner has been appointed, the claim for
up-gradation to a Class-III post is not legally sustainable. Acceptance
of the appointment amounts to exhausting one-time benefit. There
cannot be endless negotiation or choice in such appointments, which
are an exception to the general rules of recruitment. Further, the
compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but an exception
culled out by the administrative policy to provide immediate support.
Judicial intervention in such matters is limited and the courts are not
expected to substitute administrative decisions with their own
preferences.
12. In light of the foregoing discussion and the binding precedents cited
above, the claim of the petitioner for up-gradation from the post of
Peon to a Class-III post is devoid of merits.
13. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No
Costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
