[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Alok Tiwari vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution ... on 20 March, 2026
1
Digitally signed
by NADIM
2026:CGHC:13541
MOHLE
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 569 of 2021
Alok Tiwari A/o Late Jagdish Prasad Tiwari Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No.
24, Near Talab, Bhairon Nagar, Tifara, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1- Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Government Of
C.G Undertaking) Throgbh The General Manager (Human Resources),
Registeredf Officer At Third Floor, Vidut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur
492013, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2- The Executive Engineer (Human Resources) Division CSPDCL, Division
Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : None in two rounds.
For Respondent(s) :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
20/03/2026
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1. Suitable writs in the nature of certiorari may
kindly be issued and the impugned date 23.6.2020,
Annexure P/1, may be quashed in the ends of
justice;
10.2. Suitable writs in the nature of mandamus may
kindly be issued directing the respondents for
consideration of the application by the Competent
Authority for compassionate appointment of the
petitioner and allow in the light of Compassionate
Appointment Policy 2018 by a reasoned speaking
order;
10.3. Costs of the petition may kindly be allowed."
2. It appears that the father of the petitioner was employed with the
respondent department on the post of Helper. He died in harness on
25.05.2005, leaving behind his mother, two widows, three sons, and one
daughter.
3. At the time of the death of the employee, the petitioner as well as his
siblings were minors. Owing to a dispute regarding succession,
Succession Case No.02/2014 was instituted before the Court of Civil
Judge Class-I, Akaltara, which came to be decided on 13.05.2016,
thereafter, upon attaining the age of majority, the petitioner submitted
an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 07.01.2020
in the prescribed format along with requisite documents.
4. The respondent authorities rejected the said application on the ground
that on the date of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was
aged about 7 years, and the application for compassionate
appointment was submitted after a lapse of about 14 years, i.e., on
18.03.2019. It was thus held that the claim was made at a highly belated
stage and defeated the very purpose of compassionate appointment.
5. The law with regard to compassionate appointment is well settled. In the
matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs Premlata, [2022(1) SCC
30], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various precedents in time
line relating to appointment on compassionate ground. It was reiterated
that appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a
deceased employee is an exception to norms of providing equal
opportunity to all aspirants in Government vacancies mandated under
Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The compassionate ground is a
concession and not a right.
6. Similarly, in the matter of N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka
reported in AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1401, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to
the general rule of recruitment and must be strictly construed.
7. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs.
Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 219 has held as
under:-
"32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of
this Court, the following principles emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate
appointment makes a departure from the
general provisions providing for appointment
to a post by following a particular procedure
of recruitment. Since such a provision enables
appointment being made without following
the said procedure, it is in the nature of an
exception to the general provisions and must
be resorted to only in order to achieve the
stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of
the deceased to get over the sudden financial
crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is
not a source of recruitment. The reason for
making such a benevolent scheme by the
State or the public sector undertaking is to
see that the dependants of the deceased are
not deprived of the means of livelihood. It
only enables the family of the deceased to
get over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a
vested right which can be exercised at any
time in future. Compassionate employment
cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of
time and after the crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment should
be provided immediately to redeem the
family in distress. It is improper to keep such
a case pending for years.
v. In determining as to whether the family is
in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must
be borne in mind including the income of
the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits
if any, received by the family, the age,
dependency and marital status of its
members, together with the income from
any other source."
8. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment after about 14 years from the date of
death of the employee. By that time, the immediate financial crisis,
which is the foundation for grant of compassionate appointment,
cannot be said to subsist.
9. In view of the settled legal position and considering the inordinate
delay in submitting the application, this Court finds no illegality or
infirmity in the order passed by the respondent authorities rejecting the
claim of the petitioner.
10.Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
JUDGE
Nadim
