The Chhattisgarh High Court definitively holds that the eligibility for compassionate appointment is to be determined as of the date of application, not by later developments, unless fraud or deliberate misrepresentation is established. This appellate judgment upholds prior precedent and will serve as binding authority for similar disputes, especially in public employment matters involving compassionate appointment policies.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/787/2025 of COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILASPUR Vs MOHAN LAL CNR CGHC010440752025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms learned Single Judge’s order dated 20.02.2025 |
| Type of Law | Service law – Public employment, compassionate appointment |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that eligibility for compassionate appointment must be judged as on the date of application, and subsequent changes in the employment status of family members do not amount to suppression or misrepresentation in the affidavit submitted at the time. Unless there is clear evidence of fraud or deliberate concealment, appointments cannot be declared void ab initio. Cancellation of appointment cannot be justified based only on subsequent events. Reliance on authorities dealing with fraudulent appointments is inapposite if there is no established fraud in present facts. The learned Single Judge rightly reinstated the appointee, and the appeal was dismissed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Devender Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal (2013) 9 SCC 363; Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Supp (4) SCC 100; K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh (AIR 1986 SC 2086) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Clause 8 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 10.06.2003; Principles from cited Supreme Court judgments; Legal principle that eligibility is determined on the date of application unless vitiated by fraud. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The respondent’s father, employed with the Municipal Corporation, died in service in 2005. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 27.12.2006 and 12.03.2008, declaring no family government employment; at that time, his mother was only a daily-rated worker and was regularized later (12.03.2008). The respondent was appointed on 17.12.2008. In 2018, after a complaint, the appointment was cancelled alleging eligibility criteria violation due to the mother’s regularization. The writ petition against this was allowed, and this appeal followed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; all government authorities implementing compassionate appointments in the state |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in similar fact scenarios concerning compassionate appointments |
| Follows | K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh; Devender Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal; Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that eligibility for compassionate appointment is to be determined solely based on the situation existing at the date of the application; subsequent changes are irrelevant unless fraud is established.
- The mere subsequent regularization of a dependent (e.g., mother) does not retrospectively negate the validity of a truthful affidavit filed at the time of application.
- Relied on distinction between fraud/deliberate misrepresentation and factual changes after application.
- Municipal authorities must carefully scrutinize only those cases where initial application, not later events, reveal suppression or misrepresentation.
- Lawyers can urge this decision as conclusive authority when defending compassionate appointments against cancellation for reasons arising after application.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench began by reciting the undisputed facts: the respondent applied for compassionate appointment at a time when his mother was a daily wage worker, not a regular employee.
- It contrasted the subsequent regularization with the condition prevalent when the affidavit was filed, holding this later development could not amount to fraud or suppression.
- The Bench interpreted Clause 8 of the applicable Compassionate Appointment Policy and Supreme Court precedents (Devender Kumar, M. Bhaskaran), distinguished them as relating only to cases of fraudulent appointments, and found no such fraud here.
- The Court found that the cancellation was on the basis of a complaint, but no inquiry established any false or misleading statement in the original application.
- Citing K.R. Mudgal, the Court reinforced employee security after sustained tenure, particularly when no illegality in original appointment is shown.
- The court concluded that since the appointment was neither void ab initio nor obtained by fraud, the writ court was correct in quashing the cancellation and directing reinstatement, and no basis for appellate interference was found.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Municipal Corporation/Appellant):
- The compassionate appointment was void ab initio due to a false affidavit—respondent suppressed mother’s employment status.
- Under Clause 8 of the 2003 Policy, obtaining appointment by false information warrants cancellation without notice.
- Object of the policy is providing immediate relief to bereaved families, not those with other members already regularized.
- Relied upon Devender Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran regarding fraud.
- An internal inquiry established the declaration was false.
- Impugned order sets a dangerous precedent for fraudulent appointments; cancellation must be restored.
Respondent (Mohan Lal):
- When applying, no false information was given; at that time mother was only a daily wager, not a regular employee.
- The affidavit at the time of application was true.
- Mother’s regularization was subsequent to the application date.
- Served in the post for 10 years; no ground for termination.
- The Single Judge’s order is correct and does not merit interference.
Factual Background
The respondent’s father died while serving with the Municipal Corporation on 12.03.2005.
The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 27.12.2006 and again on 12.03.2008, at which time his mother was a daily wage worker, not a regular employee. She was regularized only on 12.03.2008.
The respondent was appointed as a Safai Karmachari on compassionate grounds on 17.12.2008. After ten years of undisputed service, the appointment was cancelled in 2018 on the grounds that the mother was now regularized, following a complaint and alleged misrepresentation.
The Single Judge restored the appointment, and the Municipal Corporation appealed.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Clause 8 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 10.06.2003, which mandates cancellation of appointments obtained by fraud or suppression.
- It narrowly interpreted the policy to restrict cancellation only to cases where misrepresentation existed at the time of application.
- Judicial analysis concluded that the eligibility condition, and any violation thereof, must be ascertained only as on the date of application, not by subsequent developments.
- The court also referenced general principles from Supreme Court precedent on public employment and compassionate appointment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting opinion. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge, concurred with Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed existing principles and followed binding precedent regarding compassionate appointments and the determination of eligibility.