[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Devesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

2026:CGHC:10222-DB
ROHIT NAFR
KUMAR
CHANDRA
Digitally signed HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
by ROHIT

WA No. 152 of 2026
KUMAR
CHANDRA

1 - Devesh Kumar S/o Late Netram Bharti Aged About 34 Years R/o 7th
Battalion, C.A.F. Line, Quarter No. U/6, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Revati Bharti W/o Late Netram Bharti, Aged About 48 Years R/o
7th Battalion, C.A.F. Line, Quarter No. U/6, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter Atal Nagar, Raipur,
District Raipur C.G.
3 - Deputy Inspector General of Police Centre Zone Police Head
Quarter Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
4 - Commandant 7th Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Force Bhilai, District
Durg C.G.
... Respondents

For Appellants : Ms. Poonam Gilurkar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

27.02.2026

1. Heard Ms. Poonam Gilurkar, learned counsel for the appellants

as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate,

appearing for the State/ respondents.

2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1)

of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act,

2006, the appellants, who were appellants in the writ petition have

challenged the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by learned Single

Judge in WPS No. 8607 of 2023 (Devesh Kumar & Another Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh & Others) , by which the writ petition filed

by the writ petitioners/ appellants herein has been dismissed by

the learned Single Judge.

3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the

appellant No. 2, Smt. Revati Bharti, is the widow of late Constable

Trade Man (CTM) Netram Bharti, who was employed under the 7 th

Battalion and passed away in harness on 25 th January 2021. At

the time of his death, the deceased left behind his wife (appellant

No. 2), his son, Devesh Bharti (appellant No. 1), his other son,

Mukesh Bharti, his daughter-in-law, and two granddaughters, all

of whom were wholly dependent on him. On 9 th March 2021,

appellant No.1, Devesh Bharti, submitted an application for

compassionate appointment to the relevant authorities.

Subsequently, the application was forwarded to the Director

General of Police (DIG) on 15th July 2021, but no action was taken

for an extended period. Reminders were sent by the appellant on

22nd June 2022 and 28th June 2022. On 7th July 2022, the

Commandant of the concerned battalion sent another reminder to

the DIG for the consideration of the application for compassionate

appointment (Annexure P-6). However, on 22 nd July 2022, the

appellant was informed that the application had been rejected

because one of the deceased's sons, Mukesh Bharti, was already

employed in the police department. In response to the rejection,

the appellant submitted further applications on 4 th August 2022

and 8th August 2022, clarifying that at the time of the deceased's

death on 25th January 2021 and at the time of the application for

compassionate appointment on 9th March 2021, Mukesh Bharti

was not employed in any Government position. He had only

secured a Government job on 2 nd July 2021, six months after the

death of his father.

4. The appellant argued that, as per the compassionate appointment

policy, since Mukesh Bharti was not employed at the time of his

father's death, appellant no. 1, Devesh Bharti, should be eligible

for compassionate appointment. Those applications were

forwarded by the Commandant to the higher authorities on 5 th and

16th August 2022. Additionally, the appellant submitted a copy of

Mukesh Bharti's Government appointment certificate (Annexure

P-9). The appellant also submitted affidavits/consent letters from

the family members, including Mukesh Bharti, affirming that they

had no objection to the appointment of Devesh Bharti and that

Mukesh Bharti was living separately and not financially supporting

the family (Annexure P-10). The appellant emphasized that the

compassionate appointment policy, dated 23 rd February 2019,

explicitly states that a compassionate appointment cannot be

denied based on the employment status of a family member at the

time of the deceased employee's death unless the family member

was already a Government employee at the time of death. Since

Mukesh Bharti was not employed in Government service at the

time of his father's death, appellant No. 1, Devesh Bharti, was

entitled to compassionate appointment. The appellant further

contended that the delay in considering the application,

particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, should not be used to

deny the claim for compassionate appointment, as other

applications had been processed within six months despite the

same delay. On 29th March 2023, the Secretary of the Home

Department informed appellant No. 2 that since one son, Mukesh

Bharti, was already employed in a Government position, the

appellant No.1 could not be granted compassionate appointment.

The appellant moved an application on 16 th May 2023 requesting

reconsideration, emphasizing that at the time of the death of the

deceased employee, no family member was employed in

Government service. The appellant asserts that, as per settled

legal principles, compassionate appointments should be made

strictly in accordance with the policy in place at the time of death,

and in this case, since no family member was employed in a

Government job at the time of the deceased's death, the denial of

compassionate appointment is unsustainable. However, on 10 th

October 2023, the appellant was finally informed that he was

entitled to compassionate appointment.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants had filed writ petition

before this Court being WPS No. 8607 of 2023, which came to be

dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated

17.11.2025. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned

order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is

arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and liable to

be set aside. The Learned Single Judge erred in mechanically

applying the rule that eligibility for compassionate appointment

must be assessed on the date of consideration, without

appreciating the exception carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa , (2024) 15 SCC

766, wherein it has been categorically held that an applicant

cannot be penalized for a disqualifying event occurring during

administrative delay attributable to the authorities. She further

argued that in the present case, the employee died on 25.01.2021

and the application was promptly submitted in March 2021, at a

time when the family had no earning member and was in acute

financial distress. Had the Respondents decided the application

within a reasonable period of 3-4 months, the Appellant would

have been appointed before his brother secured employment in

July 2021. The Respondents cannot be permitted to take

advantage of their own wrong. The financial condition of the family

crystallized on the date of death, and the subsequent employment

of a sibling cannot retrospectively cure the penury that existed at

that time. She also argued that the Learned Single Judge further

failed to appreciate that the employed brother was living

separately and was not providing any financial assistance to the

Appellant or other dependents, as specifically pleaded and

supported by affidavit. The mere employment of a family member

cannot automatically disqualify a claimant unless it is shown that

such employment alleviates the financial distress of the

dependent family. The unexplained delay of over a year in

processing the Appellant's application, while other similarly

situated applications were decided within six months, is arbitrary

and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The

interpretation placed upon Clause 6(A) of the Policy dated

23.02.2019 is also erroneous, as the expression " पूर्व से ही" clearly

contemplates a pre-existing employment at the time of death and

not a subsequent appointment secured during departmental

delay. By upholding the rejection on the basis of a circumstance

that arose solely due to the State's inaction, the impugned order

has resulted in grave injustice and is contrary to the equitable

principle that no person should suffer for the act or inaction of the

State.

7. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, appearing for

State/ respondents opposed the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the

impugned passed by the learned Single Judge calls for no

interference, as it correctly applies the settled principles governing

compassionate appointment. It is trite law that compassionate

appointment is not a vested right but an exception to the general

rule of recruitment, intended only to provide immediate relief to a

family in financial distress, subject strictly to the governing policy.

He further submitted that as per Clause 6(A) of the Policy dated

23.02.2019, if any member of the deceased employee's family is

in government service, no other member is eligible for

compassionate appointment. On the date when the Appellant's

case was considered, his brother was already employed in

government service; therefore, the family no longer satisfied the

eligibility criteria. The learned Single Judge rightly held that

eligibility must be assessed on the date of consideration, and the

authorities are bound by the policy as it stands. The reliance

placed by the appellants on Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) is

misconceived and distinguishable on facts, as there is no

deliberate or mala fide delay attributable to the Respondents in

the present case. It is further submitted that compassionate

appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of inheritance or

succession, and the scheme must be construed strictly. Once a

member of the family has secured government employment, the

underlying objective of immediate financial relief stands

substantially mitigated, and the family cannot seek a second

appointment under the guise of continuing hardship. The plea that

the employed brother lives separately or does not contribute

financially cannot override the express stipulation contained in

Clause 6(A), which does not contemplate a roving inquiry into

inter se family arrangements. The authorities have acted strictly in

accordance with the policy framework, and there is no violation of

Article 14 or any arbitrariness warranting interference by this

Hon'ble Court. The appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be

dismissed.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned order and materials available on record.

9. The undisputed facts are that the father of the appellant No.1, a

government servant, expired on 25.01.2021. An application for

compassionate appointment was submitted thereafter. During the

pendency of consideration of the application, the appellant's

brother secured employment in government service in July 2021.

The claim of the appellant was rejected in view of Clause 6(A) of

the Policy dated 23.02.2019, which stipulates that if any member

of the family of the deceased employee is in government service,

no other member shall be eligible for compassionate appointment.

10. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but an

exception to the general rule of public employment. The scheme

is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial

assistance to the bereaved family, and it must be strictly

construed in accordance with the governing policy. The eligibility

of a claimant has to be examined in terms of the policy prevailing

and the factual position existing on the date of consideration of

the application. On the date the appellant's case was considered,

it is an admitted position that his brother was already in

government service. Consequently, the family did not satisfy the

eligibility condition prescribed under Clause 6(A).

11. The reliance placed by the Appellant on the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) is

misplaced. In the present case, no mala fide or deliberate delay

attributable to the authorities has been established. Mere

administrative processing time, particularly during the relevant

period, cannot be equated with culpable delay so as to create an

exception to the explicit stipulation contained in the policy. The

Court cannot rewrite the terms of the scheme or dilute an express

disqualification on equitable considerations.

12. The contention that the employed brother was living separately

and not contributing financially does not alter the legal position.

Clause 6(A) does not predicate eligibility upon proof of actual

financial contribution by the employed member; rather, it imposes

a categorical bar where any family member is in government

service. Introducing a factual inquiry into inter se family

arrangements would amount to adding words to the policy, which

is impermissible in judicial review.

13. No material has been placed before this Court to substantiate the

allegation of hostile discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. The appellants have failed to demonstrate

that similarly situated persons, whose family members were

already in government service at the time of consideration, were

granted compassionate appointment contrary to the policy.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the

learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and

applied the governing principles of law. The rejection of the

appellant's claim was strictly in accordance with Clause 6(A) of

the Policy dated 23.02.2019 and does not suffer from

arbitrariness, illegality, or perversity warranting interference in

appeal.

15. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The

impugned order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Single

Judge is affirmed. No order as to costs.

                           Sd/-                                    Sd/-
                (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                     (Ramesh Sinha)
                          Judge                                Chief Justice


Chandra