State Of Chhattisgarh vs Khilesh Kumar Malakar
2026 Latest Caselaw 153 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Khilesh Kumar Malakar on 27 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                            1




                                                                           2026:CGHC:10223-DB
ROHIT
KUMAR                                                                                    NAFR
CHANDRA
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
                            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUMAR

                                              WA No. 153 of 2026
CHANDRA




                   1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works
                   Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay, New Raipur, District Raipur
                   Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1)

2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Presently Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. (Respondent No. 2) 3 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Raigarh Division, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer , Public Works Department Raigarh District Raigarh , Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4) ... Appellants versus Khilesh Kumar Malakar S/o Late Shri Milan Malakar Aged About 26 Years R/o Madhuban Modhipara, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Writ Petitioiner) ... Respondent For Appellants/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, 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 Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate,

appearing for the State/appellants as well as Mr. Tanmay

Thomas, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

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 State / appellants, who were respondents in the writ

petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, have

challenged the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by learned Single

Judge in WPS No. 5394 of 2017 (Khilesh Kumar Malakar Vs.

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

by the writ petitioner / respondent herein has been allowed by

the learned Single Judge.

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

father of the writ petitioner / respondent was working on the post

of "Gangman" in permanent gang since 1984 under the

appellant No.4 Public Works Department. During his service

tenure, he died in harness on 04.07.2008. After death of his

father, the writ petitioner made an application for grant of

compassionate appointment in view of the circulars of the State

Government dated 10.06.2003 & 27.04.2006, but the respondent

authorities failed to decide the application made by the writ

petitioner. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S)

No.261/2012 before this Court. The said writ petition was

disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2012 with

direction to the respondent authorities to decide the

representation of the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner made a

representation before the respondent authorities but the

respondent authorities did not pay any attention in this regard

and kept the matter in abeyance and the petitioner kept on

representing the respondents, but ultimately the appellant No. 3

has rejected the claim of the petitioner citing that in view of the

circular dated 27.04.2006, since the father of petitioner namely

Milan was not a permanent gangman in work-charged

establishment, as such the petitioner is not entitled for

compassionate appointment. Hence, the petitioner has

approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing WPS No.

5394 of 2017, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge

vide impugned order dated 25.06.2025 directing the respondent

authorities to provide compassionate appointment to the

petitioner within a period of 60 days from that day. Being

aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been filed by the

State / appellants.

4 Learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State /

appellants submitted that the impugned order dated 25.06.2025

passed by the learned Single Judge is legally unsustainable as it

overlooks the binding policy framework governing

compassionate appointment. The State Government's policy

dated 10.06.2003 clearly provides that compassionate

appointment is admissible only to dependents of those

employees who were permanent in contingency/work-charged

establishment and died in harness. Further clarification issued

vide instructions dated 27.04.2006 specifically excludes

dependents of unskilled labourers who were not regularized in

the work-charged contingency establishment. In the present

case, it is undisputed that the father of the writ petitioner was

working as a daily wage labourer/gangman and had not been

regularized at the time of his death on 04.07.2008. The

subsequent recommendation dated 23.08.2008 for regularization

is inconsequential, as no right had crystallized prior to his

demise. Compassionate appointment being a policy-based

concession and not a vested right, the learned Single Judge

erred in diluting the express eligibility conditions stipulated by the

State.

5 It is further submitted that the nomenclature "permanent

unskilled labour" is merely an accounting classification under the

PWD Manual and does not confer the status of a regular civil

post holder within the meaning of the applicable Pension Rules.

This distinction has been recognized by this Hon'ble Court in

Madhukar Talmale v. State of M.P., reported in 2003 (4) MPLJ

282 and in Ishwar v. State of Chhattisgarh, passed in WPS

No. 542/2012 decided on 28.02.2012, wherein it has been held

that permanent unskilled labour in the work-charged

establishment cannot be equated with a regular employee.

Therefore, the writ petitioner, being the dependent of a daily

wager who was neither regularized nor holding a civil post, does

not fall within the ambit of the compassionate appointment

policy. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these binding

precedents and the categorical policy exclusion.

6 It has been also argued that the claim suffers from gross delay

and laches. The employee died in July 2008, whereas the first

writ petition was filed in 2012 after nearly four years, and

subsequent proceedings were initiated much later.

Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate

relief to tide over sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed

after lapse of considerable time when the immediacy of hardship

no longer subsists. It is a settled principle that compassionate

appointment is not a mode of recruitment and cannot be claimed

as a matter of right. In view of the clear policy bar, absence of

regular status of the deceased employee, and unexplained delay

in approaching the Court, the writ petition deserved dismissal

and the impugned order warrants interference.

7 Per contra, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent

submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Single

Judge does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and calls

for no interference. The deceased employee had been

continuously working as "permanent unskilled labour" in the

department and had rendered long years of service prior to his

death on 04.07.2008. The material on record demonstrates that

his name had already been recommended for regularization on

23.08.2008, which clearly indicates that he was not a casual or

intermittent labourer but was working against a sanctioned set-

up in the department. The denial of compassionate appointment

solely on the ground that the formal order of regularization could

not be issued before his untimely death is arbitrary and defeats

the welfare object of the compassionate appointment policy. The

benefit cannot be denied merely due to procedural delay in

issuance of a formal regularization order, particularly when the

employee had otherwise fulfilled the conditions and was treated

as part of the permanent gang establishment.

8 It is further submitted that the distinction sought to be drawn by

the Appellants between "permanent unskilled labour" and a

regular employee is hyper-technical and has been misapplied to

the facts of the present case. The reliance on Madhukar

Talmale (supra) and Ishwar (supra) is misplaced, as those

cases turned on their own facts and did not deal with a situation

where the employee's regularization process had already been

initiated prior to death. The learned Single Judge, upon

appreciating the factual matrix, rightly concluded that the

Respondents could not deny compassionate appointment by

relying upon a technical classification under the PWD Manual.

Compassionate appointment being a social welfare measure, the

policy must receive a purposive and beneficial interpretation

rather than a restrictive one.

9 It has been also contended that the objection regarding delay

and laches is equally untenable. The writ petitioner had applied

for compassionate appointment soon after the death of his

father, and the rejection orders dated 21.07.2010 and

29.06.2010 were promptly challenged. The subsequent writ

proceedings and fresh consideration were pursuant to directions

of this Hon'ble Court. Thus, there is no deliberate or unexplained

delay attributable to the writ petitioner. In any case, when the

claim is founded upon a continuing denial of lawful consideration

under the policy, technical objections of delay cannot override

substantive justice. The learned Single Judge has correctly

appreciated the object of compassionate appointment, the

service status of the deceased employee, and the surrounding

circumstances, and therefore the appeal filed by the State

deserves to be dismissed.

10 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned order and materials available on record.

11 It is not in dispute that the father of the writ petitioner had been

working as "permanent unskilled labour" in the department for a

considerable period prior to his death on 04.07.2008. The

material available on record further indicates that his case had

been recommended for regularization on 23.08.2008. The denial

of compassionate appointment is founded solely on the ground

that formal regularization had not been issued prior to his

demise. The learned Single Judge, upon appreciation of the

record, held that such a technical ground cannot defeat the

beneficial object of the compassionate appointment policy. This

Court finds no perversity or illegality in the said finding.

12 The contention of the Appellants that the deceased was merely a

daily wager and not holding a civil post cannot be accepted in

the peculiar facts of the case. The classification of "permanent

unskilled labour" as a mere accounting nomenclature does not

conclusively determine the entitlement under a welfare scheme

when the employee had rendered continuous service and was

under active consideration for regularization. The authorities

cannot take advantage of the fact that the formal order of

regularization could not be issued before the employee's death,

particularly when the process had already been set in motion.

The learned Single Judge has rightly adopted a purposive

interpretation of the policy to advance its remedial object.

13 The objection regarding delay and laches is also without

substance. The record reflects that the writ petitioner had applied

for compassionate appointment within a reasonable time after

the death of his father and had been pursuing his remedy

against successive rejection orders. The cause of action

persisted in view of repeated denials and directions issued by

this Court for reconsideration. Hence, the claim cannot be

rejected on the ground of delay alone.

14 Compassionate appointment is undoubtedly not a matter of right;

however, when the policy conditions are substantially satisfied

and the denial is based on a hyper-technical interpretation,

judicial review is warranted. The learned Single Judge has

carefully considered the applicable policy, the service status of

the deceased employee, and the surrounding circumstances

before granting relief. No error of law, jurisdictional infirmity, or

perversity has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference

in intra-court appeal.

15 In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Appeal being devoid

of merit is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 25.06.2025

passed by the learned Single Judge is affirmed. No order as to

costs.

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


Chandra