Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7860 of 2022 Manish Khunte S/o Late Dila Ram Khunte Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Near Taj Masjid, Behind Lic office, Talapara, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- Development Commissioner office of Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Vikas Bhawan, Sector 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3- Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Services, office of Development Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan, Sector 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa ... Respondent(s) Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey 03/09/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s);- “10.1 That, this Hoin'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 08-09-2021 (Annexure P-1) and also be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioner for grant of appointment 2 for the post of Sub Engineer in the Department in view of his educational qualification. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 08-09-2021 (Annexure P-1), whereby the representation of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub Engineer has been rejected. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner, late Shri Dila Ram Khunte, was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in Sub Division Pamgarh, Rural Engineering Services Division, Janjgir, who died in harness on 23-11-2020. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner, holding a Diploma in Civil Engineering, applied for a compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Engineer. However, the department granted him appointment only on the post of Assistant Grade-III. The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 3618 of 2021 claiming therein post of Sub Engineer in the
Decision
department, which was disposed of on 15-07-2021 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner made a representation seeking appointment to the post of Sub Engineer, but the same was rejected via the impugned order dated 08-09-2021 (Appendix P-1). Hence, the present petition has been preferred; thus, she prays for quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the respondents to grant him appointment as Sub Engineer. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that in the matter of compassionate appointment, the applicant has no vested right to seek appointment on a particular post. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been 3 appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III, which is commensurate with the policy and scheme of compassionate appointment, and therefore, no interference is required; thus, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. It is a well-settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and is intended only to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness. The petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right to a particular post nor can he insist upon being appointed on a post of his choice merely on the basis of his educational qualifications. 6. In the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh & others VS. Ramesh Kumar Sharma (1994) Supp.(3) SCC 661, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a candidate for compassionate appointment has no right to any particular post of choice. He can only claim to be considered. 7. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307, has held that an applicant has no right to claim compassionate appointment in a particular class or group. The relevant paragraphs 9 & 10 are reproduced hereunder: "9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 10. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not 4 another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, the applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased." 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been offered and appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III on compassionate basis. His representation seeking appointment on the post of Sub Engineer was duly considered by the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 and rejected vide impugned order dated 08-09- 2021 on the ground that the petitioner cannot make a choice of post. 9. The said view is supported by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, wherein it has consistently been held that compassionate appointment is not a mode of recruitment and the applicant cannot claim it as a matter of right. 10. Considering the above discussed facts and law, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 08-09-2021. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim