Pranav Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of School

: Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. ... Respondent(s) For Respondents/State : Ms. Nupoor Trivedi, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 01/05/2025

By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on a suitable post under Grade-III and also to modify the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III or any other equivalent post under Grade-III.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner, Late Smt. Bharti Dewangan, who was working as a Lecturer at Government High School, Chhaparbhanpuri, Block- Tokapal, District: Bastar, died in harness on 30.11.2024, subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the petitioner is having a B.Tech Degree in Civil Engineering and despite his qualification, the respondents authorities appointed the petitioner on the post of Peon(Grade-IV) by issuing an appointment order dated 24/03/2025, which is illegal and arbitrary.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that after issuing an appointment order by the respondent authorities, the petitioner joined the service on 03/04/2025. He further relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anusuiya Oti v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No. 4324 of 2015), wherein it is 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 3 Court. Learned State counsel has also drawn support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.G. (Karmik) and Others v. Prahlad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162 , where the Court held that once the right of compassionate appointment is exercised and exhausted, no further or second consideration for higher post arises.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleading and documents.

In the matter of Anusuiya Oti (supra), this Court clearly held that once a person is granted the appointment on compassionate grounds and has accepted and joined, the claim for a change or up- gradation of the post is not maintainable. Similarly, in Prahlad Mani Tripathi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is a one-time benefit, and the beneficiary cannot seek further consideration or betterment of position on that basis.

Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession granted under service jurisprudence to mitigate the immediate financial crisis faced by the family of the deceased government servant. It cannot be treated as a mode of regular employment nor can it be pressed for higher entitlement beyond the scope of the scheme or guidelines. The appointment under the scheme is subject to the availability of posts, administrative discretion, and satisfaction of other procedural requirements.

Further, the compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but an exception carved out by administrative policy to provide immediate support. Judicial intervention in such matters is limited, and the 4 courts are not expected to substitute administrative decisions with their own preferences.

In the present case, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in view of death of his mother Late Smt. Bharti Dewanga, who was working in the education department. Thereafter, the appointment order was issued to the petitioner and he joined the post of Peon on 03/04/2025.

In light of the foregoing discussion, the binding precedents cited above and as the petitioner has already joined the service on 03/04/2025, the claim of the petitioner for up-gradation from the post of Peon (Grade-IV) to the Grade-III is devoid of merit.