The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms that compassionate appointments are strictly for immediate relief following a government employee’s death, not as an entitlement years later; upholds Supreme Court precedent, confirming binding limits on delayed applications and denying eligibility after prolonged lapse.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/734/2025 of KU. SMRITI VERMA Vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010368372025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Justice Bibhu Datta Guru (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Chhattisgarh; follows Supreme Court precedent. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms dismissal by Single Judge; follows Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, AIR Online 2022 SC 471. |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Compassionate Appointment |
| Questions of Law | Whether an application for compassionate appointment, made more than a decade after the death of a government employee, is permissible under existing policy and law. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Compassionate appointment is meant as immediate financial assistance for families in sudden distress due to the government employee’s death. Delayed applications defeat the scheme’s purpose. The court held that applications filed many years after the employee’s death cannot be allowed, especially where the family has already survived the crisis. This position is reinforced by Supreme Court authority stating that such appointments are not a matter of right but a humanitarian exception, and untimely claims undermine the object of the provision. The court thus upheld the Single Judge’s dismissal. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of Maharashtra and another v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, AIR Online 2022 SC 471 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Cited the humanitarian basis and immediate relief objective of compassionate appointments; separation from any notion of entitlement or deferred grant. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner’s mother, an Assistant Teacher, died in service in 2000. Petitioner, a minor then, sought compassionate appointment in 2015 upon attaining majority. Application was rejected. Single Judge dismissed challenge; appeal filed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within State of Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court given reliance on Supreme Court authority |
| Follows | State of Maharashtra and another v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, AIR Online 2022 SC 471 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the purpose of compassionate appointment is immediate relief, not deferred entitlement.
- Applications made many years after the employee’s death are impermissible, regardless of when the dependent attains majority.
- Cites and follows recent Supreme Court ruling (Madhuri Maruti Vidhate) on delayed compassionate appointment claims.
- The court rejects the argument that policy existing at the time of death (including majority attainment provision) overrides humanitarian time-bound objective.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court notes the established objective of compassionate appointment is to offer immediate financial support to families facing sudden hardship due to a government employee’s death.
- It reviews the timeline: The employee died in 2000; petitioner applied in 2015 on attaining majority.
- The bench finds that, by this time, the family had survived the immediate crisis, which nullifies the humanitarian ground for assistance.
- The court relies on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, reaffirming that such appointments are an exception to regular recruitment, not a vested right.
- The appeal is dismissed as the Single Judge correctly denied relief in line with law and precedent.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Respondents wrongly applied the 2003 policy; the 1994 policy should apply as that existed at the time of mother’s death.
- The 1994 policy allowed dependents to apply after attaining majority; thus, application in 2015 was timely.
- Petitioner was deserted by her father post-mother’s death and raised by a grandmother; application made as soon as eligible.
Respondent/State:
- The Single Judge’s view is correct; no interference is warranted.
- Cited the purpose of compassionate appointment as immediate assistance, arguing the delay defeats this purpose.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s mother, employed as an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department, died in harness in December 2000. The petitioner was a minor at the time. She completed her education and, after attaining majority, applied for compassionate appointment in August 2015. This application was rejected in 2017. The petitioner challenged the rejection before the Single Judge, who dismissed the petition. The present appeal challenges that dismissal.
Statutory Analysis
- The court analyses policy provisions governing compassionate appointment, noting their rationale is to provide immediate financial assistance to bereaved families.
- Relies on interpretive guidance from the Supreme Court, emphasizing a narrow reading — the scheme is not meant for deferred or postponed relief but for bridging immediate hardship only.
- The court finds that the “attainment of majority” cannot override the essential temporal nexus between death-in-service and crisis relief.
- No new or differing constitutional provisions or expansive readings are applied; the original, time-bound intention of the compassionate appointment scheme is maintained.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- Justice Bibhu Datta Guru concurs with Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha.
- No dissenting or separate reasoning is recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines were noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly affirms and follows established Supreme Court law regarding the purpose and temporal scope of compassionate appointments.