Chhattisgarh High Court holds that only regular government servants whose appointment orders are issued and who are serving at the time of death are covered under compassionate appointment schemes; claim of dependents of prospective appointees undergoing pre-service training is not maintainable. This judgment upholds longstanding government circulars and offers binding authority for service matters relating to compassionate appointment in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/2091/2022 of PRAVEEN KUMAR SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010099852022 |
| Date of Registration | 25-03-2022 |
| Decision Date | 11-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prevailing circulars and service law relating to compassionate appointment |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Employment / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a person selected for government service but yet to receive an appointment order or complete training is a “government servant” whose dependents are eligible for compassionate appointment? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that compassionate appointment is restricted to dependents of regular government servants whose appointment orders have been issued and who were serving at the time of death. It expressly relied on the definition in Clause 3 of the State government circular dated 14.06.2013, which confines eligibility to those in regular, contingency, or work-charged establishment serving at the time of demise. Since the petitioner’s brother had only been selected but not officially appointed, having died during pre-appointment training without issuance of an appointment order, his dependents are excluded from claiming compassionate appointment. The Court concluded there was no error in the authority’s rejection of the petition. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Clause 3 of the State of Chhattisgarh Circular dated 14.06.2013 governing compassionate appointment in government service. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner’s brother, after being selected as Patwari and sent for a yearlong training, died during the training period due to COVID-19. The petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the deceased was not a government servant as per service rules. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities under the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India on similar questions of compassionate appointment eligibility |
| Follows | Clause 3 of State of Chhattisgarh’s Circular defining “deceased government servant” eligibility |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court has reaffirmed that only persons with issued appointment orders and in service at the time of death are “government servants” for the purpose of compassionate appointment schemes in Chhattisgarh.
- Selection to a post and nomination for training, without actual appointment order or assumption of duty, does not confer the status of “government servant.”
- Lawyers handling compassionate appointment litigations must carefully assess the deceased’s service status vis-à-vis government circulars prior to filing petitions.
- The government circular (Clause 3, 14.06.2013) remains decisive—practitioners should refer to its precise language when advising dependents of deceased government employees.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court carefully scrutinized the government circular dated 14.06.2013, specifically Clause 3, which limits compassionate appointment to dependents of “regular government servant working under regular / contingency / work-charged establishment who died untimely during his service period.”
- It found that merely being selected for the post and nominated for pre-appointment training without issuance of an appointment order does not amount to being a government servant.
- The Court noted that the death occurred while the person was still a trainee, with no appointment order having been issued, and therefore the deceased did not fit within the administrative definition that governs eligibility for compassionate appointment.
- On this basis, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the respondent authority’s rejection and affirming the applicable service law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Argued that the deceased, having been selected and sent for training, should be considered a government servant.
- Asserted that authorities were bound to consider the compassionate appointment claim in favor of dependents under such circumstances.
Respondent (State):
- Contended that appointment order had not been issued; the deceased was only a selected candidate undergoing training.
- Emphasized that, per the applicable government circular, only dependents of those formally appointed and in service are eligible, justifying rejection of petitioner’s claim.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s brother, Pramod Sahu, was selected for the post of Patwari by government order dated 16.10.2019 and subsequently sent for one year of training. During this training period and prior to issuance of any appointment order, he died on 21.04.2021 due to COVID-19. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 18.05.2021, but the request was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the deceased was not a government servant as per service rules.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court closely analyzed Clause 3 of the State of Chhattisgarh’s Circular dated 14.06.2013 governing compassionate appointment.
- This clause restricts benefits to dependents of regular/contingent/work-charged employees who have died in service, thus excluding mere selectees or trainees from its ambit.
- No “reading down” or judicial expansion was applied; the interpretation remained confined to the explicit wording of the circular.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing law and government administrative circulars regarding eligibility for compassionate appointment.