Compassionate Appointment A One-Time Benefit; Acceptance Even Under Protest Forbids Subsequent Claims For Upgradation: Chhattisgarh HC

Dismissing a writ petition filed by a Gardener (Mali), who had accepted the post under protest, and claimed that he was qualified for the post of Driver, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held,

“The appointment under the scheme is subject to the availability of posts, administrative discretion, and satisfaction of other procedural requirements. Though the petitioner's name was recommended for the post of Driver but the final appointment was made to the post of Gardener (Mali). The petitioner, despite disagreement, joined the said post under protest on 14.09.2020. Applying the ratio of the above-referred cases to the present facts, once the petitioner has been appointed even under protest to the post of Gardener (Mali), the claim for up-gradation to the post of Driver is not legally sustainable. Acceptance of appointment, even under protest, amounts to exhaustion of the one-time benefit. There cannot be endless negotiation or choice in such appointments, which are an exception to the general rule of recruitment.”

Facts:

The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment after his father, who worked as a Chowkidar in the Public Works Department, died in harness. The said application was processed and the petitioner was issued an appointment order to the post of Gardener, which was a Class-IV post. However, the petitioner refused to join the said post and subsequently had his name recommended by the Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Respondent 3) to the post of Driver. Despite such recommendation, he was not granted appointment to the post of Driver. Instead, an appointment order dated 01.09.2018 (impugned order) was issued in his name for the post of Gardener, which the petitioner ultimately accepted. However, the petitioner challenged the impugned order by way of the writ petition.

It was the case of the petitioner that though he was offered compassionate appointment for the post of Gardener, his educational qualification made him eligible for the post of Driver, which is a Class-III post and he was therefore entitled to such appointment. He also relied on point no. 7(3) of the circular dated 14.06.2013, which provided that the dependent of a deceased Class-IV employee may be appointed to a Class-III post on compassionate grounds, if he or she is educationally qualified.

Opposing the stand of the petitioner, the respondents relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anusuiya Oti v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPS No. 4324 of 2015] and I.G. (Karmik) and Others v. Prahlad Mani Tripathi [(2007) 6 SCC 162], a collective reading of which would establish that once the right of compassionate appointment is exercised and exhausted by accepting such appointment, a subsequent claim for change or upgradation of post is impermissible.

Findings:

Regarding the scope of compassionate appointment, the Court explained that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession granted under service jurisprudence to mitigate the immediate financial crisis faced by the family of a deceased government servant and 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.”

Additionally, the Court observed,

“…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 courts are not expected to substitute administrative decisions with their own preferences.”

In light of these observations and the principles laid down in Anusuiya Oti and Prahlad Mani Tripathi, the Court, in its conclusion, held that that the claim of the petitioner to be upgraded in appointment from the post of Gardener to Driver was impermissible as he had already accepted, albeit under protest, the post of Gardener.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Details:

Case Number: WPS No. 6349 of 2018

Case Title: Abhinay Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Date: 25.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order