1
Digitally
RAGHVENDRA signed by
NAFR
JAT RAGHVENDRA
JAT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2777 of 2023
Order Reserved on: 20.2.2026
Order Delivered on: 15.4.2026
1 - Smt. Babita Rangi W/o Lt. Shri Jitendra Singh Rangi Aged About 50
Years R/o Plot No. - 601, Millenium Chowk, Sunder Nagar, Raipur,
Police Station - D D, Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Apoorv Rangi S/o Lt. Shri Jitendra Singh Rangi Aged About 27 Years
R/o Plot No. - 601, Millenium Chowk, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Police
Station - D D, Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through It's Secretary, Department Of
Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post -
Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.),
Sector- 19, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.) Crime Investigation Department
(C.I.D.), Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Sector- 19, Police Station And
2
Post Office- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Assistant Inspector General Of Police (A.I.G.P.) Office Of (A.I.G.P.),
Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D.), Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.),
Sector- 19, Police Station And Post Office- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Superintendent Of Police (S.P.) Crime Investigation Department
(C.I.D.), Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Sector- 19, Police Station And
Post Office- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following
reliefs:-
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to produce all the
relevant records relating to case of the petitioner
before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
give compassionate appointment and joining to the
petitioner No.2 Apoorv Rangi on the post of ASI
3
(Ministerial) in compliance of earlier order dated
16.09.2021 passed by respondent No.2 DGP PHQ
Raipur (Annexure P/4).
(iii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct respondent authority to give full salary and other
consequential benefits to the petitioner No.2 on the
post of ASI (M) for which the petitioner No.2 is entitled
for.
(iv) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
give suitable compensation to the petitioners for the
mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships
suffered by them as also cost of the litigation."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have approached
this Hon'ble Court seeking indulgence for enforcement and
compliance of the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by respondent
No. 2, Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur,
regarding grant of compassionate appointment. The husband of
petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, namely Late
Jitendra Singh Rangi, was serving as an Inspector in the Crime
Investigation Department (C.I.D.), PHQ, Raipur, and unfortunately
died in harness on 14.12.2019, leaving the family in financial
distress. Thereafter, petitioner No. 2 submitted an application
dated 16.06.2020 seeking compassionate appointment, and
petitioner No. 1, being his mother, also submitted an application
supporting and requesting appointment of petitioner No. 2 on
4
compassionate grounds. Pursuant to consideration of the said
applications, an appointment order dated 16.09.2021 was issued
in favour of petitioner No. 2 by the DGP, PHQ, Raipur, and
consequential steps were undertaken, including issuance of a
letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Raipur, for medical examination
of petitioner No. 2. He was further directed to obtain a character
verification certificate for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (M),
and a duly constituted committee conducted his physical
measurement examination for the said post. A medical certificate
was also issued declaring him fit and eligible in all respects,
however, despite completion of all requisite formalities and
fulfillment of prescribed conditions, the petitioners submit that no
formal appointment has been granted to petitioner No. 2 till date,
compelling them to file the present petition seeking appropriate
relief.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the
concerned Director General of Police duly approved the
appointment of petitioner No. 2 for grant of compassionate
appointment vide letter dated 16.09.2021, and pursuant to such
approval petitioner No. 2 has already undergone the requisite
physical examination and character verification for the post of
Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) [ASI (M)], the continued
failure of the respondents to issue the appointment order is wholly
illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is further contended
that several similarly situated candidates have already been
5
granted compassionate appointment to the post of ASI (M),
including Smt. Jyoti Javrani, widow of Late Shri J.R. Javrani, Shri
Cheta Prakash Tandon, on account of the death of his brother, Ku.
Asha Tandey, daughter of late Shri Ranglal Tandey, Shri Deepak
Rathoree, son of Late Shri Dhansay Rathore and Shri Tapesh
Katre, son of Late Shri Ishwar Dayal Katre. In view of the parity of
circumstances and the fact that petitioner No. 2 stands on
identical footing with the aforesaid appointees, his case is
squarely covered by the appointment orders issued in their favour.
Despite fulfillment of all requisite formalities and approval by the
competent authority, petitioner No. 2 has been unjustifiably denied
appointment till date, compelling the petitioners to approach this
Hon'ble Court by way of the present writ petition.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that, as
no vacant post was available, petitioner No. 2 could not be
granted appointment on compassionate grounds. It is further
contended that petitioner No. 2 was found ineligible, as he failed
to clear the requisite physical examination on account of certain
medical deficiencies, namely knock knee and flat foot, and
therefore, upon physical verification, he was declared unfit for
appointment. Learned counsel additionally submits that although
the State Government, by letter dated 22.05.2021, had relaxed
the ceiling of 10% for compassionate appointments, the benefit
thereof could not be extended to petitioner No. 2 since his
character verification had not been completed during the
6
subsistence of the relaxation, and by the time the process was
underway, the said relaxation order had expired. It is further
submitted that during the course of character verification, it was
revealed that petitioner No. 2 had been involved in certain criminal
cases and had been charge-sheeted therein, however, in two
such cases, he was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution
failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In view of
these circumstances, learned counsel for the State submits that
petitioner No. 2 was not entitled to compassionate appointment.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Upon a bare and careful perusal of the record, it transpires that
recommendations were duly made in favour of Petitioner No. 2 for
grant of compassionate appointment consequent upon the
untimely demise of his father, Late Jitendra Singh Rangi, who died
in harness on 14.12.2019. The record further reveals that
Petitioner No. 2 was subsequently called upon to undergo
physical as well as character verification in accordance with the
applicable rules and procedure. It appears from the documents
placed on record by the State that, during physical verification,
Petitioner No. 2 was found medically unfit for the post of Assistant
Sub-Inspector (M) on account of suffering from knock knee, which
was treated as a disqualification against him. Additionally, the
State has contended that, owing to the lapse of time, the
relaxation earlier granted by the State Government had expired,
7
and consequently, compassionate appointment could not be
extended to Petitioner No. 2, as is evident from communication
dated 12.04.2023 annexed as Annexure R/1 to the reply.
However, it is also borne out from the record that Petitioner No. 2
has placed on record a judgment of acquittal rendered in his
favour, demonstrating that although he had been chargesheeted
in certain criminal cases, he ultimately stood acquitted of the said
charges.
7. The High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Dana Ram vs. State
of Rajasthan and another, 2024 (4) RLW 2917, the High Court of
Rajasthan has observed as under:-
"13. The reason for denial of appointment to the petitioner
is the pendency of the criminal case and the Clause-1
Sub-clause-7 of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019.
It is an admitted fact that the allegations made against the
petitioner in the chargesheet in criminal case has not
been considered by any Committee or the Competent
Authorities of the respondent-Department as per the
parameters provided in the circular/notification dated
04.12.2019. The provisions of the circular/notification
dated 04.12.2019 cannot be applied mechanically by the
respondents and merely on the fact that petitioner is
involved in any criminal case, the respondents cannot
deny the appointment to the him. A close reading of the
circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 shows that each
8
individual case, in which charge-sheet has been filed, is
required to be examined by the competent authorities for
the purpose of reaching to the conclusion as to whether
the character of a candidate is above board or not and
whether a person can be denied appointment on the
ground of his bad character or whether a person is
holding the certificate of good character or not?
14. This Court is firmly of the view that the respondents
are under an obligation to examine each case,
considering the facts and circumstances o the criminal
case, as well as involvement/allegation against the
candidate in order to reach a conclusion that whether a
candidate/person can be said to be of good character or
not in light of the guidelines set forth in the
circular/notification dated 04.12.2019.
15. A close reading of 09 points mentioned in Clause-1 of
the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 shows that to
deny the appointment on the ground of under
trial/conviction of a candidate for certain offences could be
said to be illustrative only and this list cannot be said to be
exhaustive. The principle for arriving at a decision that a
person is not entitled for appointment in the services of
the State is based on the fact that whether the act/offer
committed by a candidate/person involves moral turpitude
or not? If a person has committed an act which can come
9
in the ambit of moral turpitude and act done by such
person shall have negative impact in discharge of his
duties on the post on which he will be appointed, then in
these two situations person/candidate is certainly dis-
entitled for appointment on that post.
There could be violation of certain Acts under
which an offene committed which are not
elaborated or mentioned in Clause-1 of
circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 but the
same may constitute an offence involving moral
turpitude which may dis entitle a person for
Government job. Thus, in the opinion of this
Court, each individual case is required to be
examined from the angle that whether the
act/offence committed by such person involves
moral turpitude or not and whether a person who
has committed such act can be granted a
certificate of 'Good character or not. Without
examining each case on the facts and
circumstances of that criminal case, the
candidature cannot be rejected merely on the
ground that an FIR/Charge-sheet has been fled
under one of the offences enumerated in
Clause-1 of the circular/notification dated
04.12.2019.
10
16. This Court is of the view that a person is not entitled
for appointment in the State Services, if his acts constitute
an act of moral turpitude and the same could affect the
work negatively on the post for which he is being
appointed. In the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 for
the purpose of character verification, it has been
mentioned that even the conviction by a Court of law need
not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good
character. The circumstances of the conviction should be
taken into account and if the same involve no moral
turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a
movement which has its object to overthrow by violent
means of a Government as established by law, the mere
conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification
Likewise, other incidents in which a candidate is said to
be involved may necessarily do not give an indication that
the said person could not hold good character. Before
reaching to the conclusion as to whether a person is unfit
to be appointed in the Government job or not, each case
is required to be scrutinized by the competent authorities
considering the facts involved in that particular criminal
case.
17. In the present case, since the respondents have not
examined the case of the petitioner in light of the
circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 and have directly
11
reached to the conclusion that since the petitioner is
involved in the criminal case, he is not entitled for a
Government job in pursuance of the selection, is de-hors
the law."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh vs.
Union of India & others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"3. It cannot be disputed that the whole idea of verification
of character and antecedents is that the person suitable for
the post in question is appointed. It is one of the important
criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before
appointment is made. An incumbent should not have
antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him
unsuitable for the post. Mere involvement in some petty
kind of case would not render a person unsuitable for the
job. Way back in the year 1983, in State of M.P. v.
Ramashanker Raghuvanshi [State of M.P. v. Ramashanker
Raghuvanshi, (1983) 2 SCC 145 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 371 :
1983 SCC (L&S) 263] , where a teacher was employed in a
municipal school which was taken over by the Government
and who was absorbed in government service in 1972
subject to verification of antecedents and medical fitness.
The termination order was passed on the basis of a report
made by the Superintendent of Police to the effect that the
respondent was not a fit person to be entertained in
12
government service, as he had taken part in "RSS and Jan
Sangh activities". There was no allegation of involvement in
subversive activities. It was held that such activities were
not likely to affect the integrity of individual's service. To
hold otherwise would be to introduce "McCarthyism" into
India which is not healthy to the philosophy of our
Constitution. It was observed by this Court that most
students and most young men who take part in political
activities and if they do get involved in some form of
agitation or the other, is it to be to their ever lasting
discredit? Sometimes they feel strongly on injustice and
resist. They are sometimes pushed into the forefront by
elderly persons who lead and mislead them. Should all
these young men be debarred from public employment? Is
government service such a heaven that only angels should
seek entry into it? This Court has laid down that the whole
business of seeking police report about the political belief
and association of the past political activities of a candidate
for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights
guaranteed by the Constitution.
4. This Court has considered in Ramashanker Raghuvanshi
case [State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi, (1983) 2
SCC 145 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 371 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 263] the
decision in Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles
[Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 95 L Ed
13
1317 : 341 US 716 (1951) : 1951 SCC OnLine US SC 77]
thus : (SCC pp. 151 & 153, paras 5-6 & 10)
"5. In another loyalty oath case, Garner v. Board of
Public Works of Los Angeles [Garner v. Board of Public
Works of Los Angeles, 95 L Ed 1317 : 341 US 716
(1951) : 1951 SCC OnLine US SC 77] , Douglas, J. had
this to say : (SCC OnLine US SC paras 49-50)
'49. ... Here the past conduct for which punishment
is exacted is single--advocacy within the past five
years of the overthrow of the Government by force
and violence. In the other cases the acts for which
Cummings and Garland stood condemned covered
a wider range and involved some conduct which
might be vague and uncertain. But those
differences, seized on here in hostility to the
constitutional provisions, are wholly irrelevant.
Deprivation of a man's means of livelihood by
reason of past conduct, not subject to this penalty
when committed, is punishment whether he is a
professional man, a day labourer who works for
private industry, or a government employee. The
deprivation is nonetheless unconstitutional whether
it be for one single past act or a series of past acts.
...
50. Petitioners were disqualified from office not for
what they are today, not because of any
programme they currently espouse (cf. Gerende v.
Board of Supervisors [Gerende v. Board of
Supervisors, 95 L Ed 745 : 341 US 56 (1951) :
1951 SCC OnLine US SC 41] ), not because of
standards related to fitness for the office, cf. Dent v.
West Virginia [Dent v. West Virginia, 32 L Ed 623 :
129 US 114 (1889) : 1889 SCC OnLine US SC 9] ;
Hawker v. New York [Hawker v. New York, 42 L Ed
1002 : 170 US 189 (1898) : 1898 SCC OnLine US
SC 69] , but for what they once advocated.'
6. In the same case, Frankfurter, J. observed : (Garner
case [Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 95
L Ed 1317 : 341 US 716 (1951) : 1951 SCC OnLine US
SC 77] , SCC OnLine US SC para 29)
'29. The needs of security do not require such curbs on
what may well be innocuous feelings and associations.
Such curbs are indeed self-defeating. They are not merely
unjustifiable restraints on individuals. They are not merely
productive of an atmosphere of repression uncongenial to
the spiritual vitality of a democratic society. The inhibitions
which they engender are hostile to the best conditions for
securing a high-minded and high-spirited public service.'
10. We are not for a moment suggesting that even after
entry into government service, a person may engage
himself in political activities. All that we say is that he
cannot be turned back at the very threshold on the ground
of his past political activities. Once he becomes a
government servant, he becomes subject to the various
rules regulating his conduct and his activities must
naturally be subject to all rules made in conformity with the
Constitution."
At the same time, this Court has also observed that after
entry into government service, a person has to abide by
the service rules in conformity with the Constitution.
5. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in T.S. Vasudavan Nair v.
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre [T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Vikram
Sarabhai Space Centre, 1988 Supp SCC 795 : 1989 SCC (L&S)
121] had considered a case where the employee had suppressed
the fact that during emergency he had been convicted in a case
registered under the Defence of India Rules for having shouted
slogans on one occasion. This Court has laid down that cancelling
the offer of appointment due to such non-disclosure was illegal
and the employer was directed to appoint him as a lower division
clerk. Thus, this Court has taken the view that non-disclosure of
the aforesaid case was not a material suppression on the basis of
which employment could have been denied and the person
adjudged unsuitable for being appointed as an LDC. This Court
has laid down thus : (SCC p. 795, para 2)
"2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the
special facts and circumstances of this case we feel that the
appellant should not have been denied the employment on
the sole ground that he had not disclosed that during
emergency he had been convicted under the Defence of
India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion.
We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and
also the order dated 1-8-1983 cancelling the offer of
appointment. The respondents shall issue the order of
appointment to the appellant within three months appointing
him as a lower division clerk, if he is not otherwise
disqualified, with effect from the date on which he assumes
duty. It is open to the respondents to employ the appellant
at any place of their choice. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly."
9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the order dated
12.04.2023, annexed with the reply as Annexure R/1, is not in
accordance with law. By the said order, the petitioner has been
denied compassionate appointment on the ground that he failed to
complete the attestation formalities within the stipulated time, as a
result of which his character verification could not be conducted in
time, and further on the ground that the relaxation period granted
by the State had also expired. Consequently, it has been held that
the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment to the
post of ASI (M). However, such a conclusion is unsustainable in
the eyes of law, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner
had duly submitted the medical documents as directed by the
competent authority, yet his physical verification was not
conducted. Moreover, the delay in completing the attestation
formalities, by itself, cannot be made a sole ground to deny the
petitioner the benefit of compassionate appointment, especially
when the circumstances indicate that the petitioner had
substantially complied with the requirements and the lapse, if any,
was not entirely attributable to him.
10. Compassionate appointments are granted with the object of
providing immediate financial and social support to the family of a
deceased employee, who was the sole breadwinner, and who
died while in service. The underlying purpose of such
appointments is to alleviate the sudden distress and hardship
caused to the dependents due to the untimely demise of the
earning member, thereby ensuring that the family is not left in a
state of penury and is able to sustain itself with dignity.
11. In the present matter, the deceased employee, Jitendra Singh
Rangi, is survived by his widow, petitioner No. 1, and his son,
petitioner No. 2. It is pertinent to note that the entire process and
requisite formalities relating to the claim for compassionate
appointment had already been duly completed during the years
2021-2022. In such circumstances, the denial of compassionate
appointment on the grounds mentioned in the letter dated
12.04.2023 is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained in law,
particularly when the said communication was not even duly
served upon the petitioners.
12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the application of
Petitioner No. 2 for grant of compassionate appointment warrants
fresh consideration. Accordingly, the concerned respondent
authorities are directed to reconsider the case of Petitioner No. 2
for compassionate appointment and to pass an appropriate,
reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.
13. This be done within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
14. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
The date when The date when The date when the judgment is
the judgment is the judgment is uploaded on the website
reserved pronounced
Operative Full
20.2.2026 15.4.2026 - 15.4.2026
Raghu Jat
