1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2777 of 2023 Order Reserved on: 20.2.2026 Order Delivered on: 15.4.2026 1 - Smt. Babita Rangi W/o Lt. Shri Jitendra Singh Rangi Aged About 50 Years R/o Plot No. - 601, Millenium Chowk, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Police Station - D D, Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Apoorv Rangi S/o Lt. Shri Jitendra Singh Rangi Aged About 27 Years R/o Plot No. - 601, Millenium Chowk, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Police Station - D D, Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through It's Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Sector- 19, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.) Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D.), Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Sector- 19, Police Station And RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Post Office- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Inspector General Of Police (A.I.G.P.) Office Of (A.I.G.P.), Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D.), Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Sector- 19, Police Station And Post Office- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Superintendent Of Police (S.P.) Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D.), Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Sector- 19, Police Station And Post Office- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. (ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to give compassionate appointment and joining to the petitioner No.2 Apoorv Rangi on the post of ASI 3 (Ministerial) in compliance of earlier order dated 16.09.2021 passed by respondent No.2 DGP PHQ Raipur (Annexure P/4). (iii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to give full salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioner No.2 on the post of ASI (M) for which the petitioner No.2 is entitled for. (iv) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to give suitable compensation to the petitioners for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by them as also cost of the litigation.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court seeking indulgence for enforcement and compliance of the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by respondent No. 2, Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, regarding grant of compassionate appointment. The husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, namely Late Jitendra Singh Rangi, was serving as an Inspector in the Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D.), PHQ, Raipur, and unfortunately died in harness on 14.12.2019, leaving the family in financial distress. Thereafter, petitioner No. 2 submitted an application dated 16.06.2020 seeking compassionate appointment, and petitioner No. 1, being his mother, also submitted an application supporting and requesting appointment of petitioner No. 2 on 4 compassionate grounds. Pursuant to consideration of the said applications, an appointment order dated 16.09.2021 was issued in favour of petitioner No. 2 by the DGP, PHQ, Raipur, and consequential steps were undertaken, including issuance of a letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Raipur, for medical examination of petitioner No. 2. He was further directed to obtain a character verification certificate for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (M), and a duly constituted committee conducted his physical measurement examination for the said post. A medical certificate was also issued declaring him fit and eligible in all respects, however, despite completion of all requisite formalities and fulfillment of prescribed conditions, the petitioners submit that no formal appointment has been granted to petitioner No. 2 till date, compelling them to file the present petition seeking appropriate relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the concerned Director General of Police duly approved the appointment of petitioner No. 2 for grant of compassionate appointment vide letter dated 16.09.2021, and pursuant to such approval petitioner No. 2 has already undergone the requisite physical examination and character verification for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) [ASI (M)], the continued failure of the respondents to issue the appointment order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is further contended that several similarly situated candidates have already been 5 granted compassionate appointment to the post of ASI (M), including Smt. Jyoti Javrani, widow of Late Shri J.R. Javrani, Shri Cheta Prakash Tandon, on account of the death of his brother, Ku. Asha Tandey, daughter of late Shri Ranglal Tandey, Shri Deepak Rathoree, son of Late Shri Dhansay Rathore and Shri Tapesh Katre, son of Late Shri Ishwar Dayal Katre. In view of the parity of circumstances and the fact that petitioner No. 2 stands on identical footing with the aforesaid appointees, his case is squarely covered by the appointment orders issued in their favour. Despite fulfillment of all requisite formalities and approval by the competent authority, petitioner No. 2 has been unjustifiably denied appointment till date, compelling the petitioners to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that, as no vacant post was available, petitioner No. 2 could not be granted appointment on compassionate grounds. It is further contended that petitioner No. 2 was found ineligible, as he failed to clear the requisite physical examination on account of certain medical deficiencies, namely knock knee and flat foot, and therefore, upon physical verification, he was declared unfit for appointment. Learned counsel additionally submits that although the State Government, by letter dated 22.05.2021, had relaxed the ceiling of 10% for compassionate appointments, the benefit thereof could not be extended to petitioner No. 2 since his character verification had not been completed during the 6 subsistence of the relaxation, and by the time the process was underway, the said relaxation order had expired. It is further submitted that during the course of character verification, it was revealed that petitioner No. 2 had been involved in certain criminal cases and had been charge-sheeted therein, however, in two such cases, he was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In view of these circumstances, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner No. 2 was not entitled to compassionate appointment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon a bare and careful perusal of the record, it transpires that recommendations were duly made in favour of Petitioner No. 2 for grant of compassionate appointment consequent upon the untimely demise of his father, Late Jitendra Singh Rangi, who died in harness on 14.12.2019. The record further reveals that Petitioner No. 2 was subsequently called upon to undergo physical as well as character verification in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure. It appears from the documents placed on record by the State that, during physical verification, Petitioner No. 2 was found medically unfit for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (M) on account of suffering from knock knee, which was treated as a disqualification against him. Additionally, the State has contended that, owing to the lapse of time, the relaxation earlier granted by the State Government had expired, 7 and consequently, compassionate appointment could not be extended to Petitioner No. 2, as is evident from communication dated 12.04.2023 annexed as Annexure R/1 to the reply. However, it is also borne out from the record that Petitioner No. 2 has placed on record a judgment of acquittal rendered in his favour, demonstrating that although he had been chargesheeted in certain criminal cases, he ultimately stood acquitted of the said charges. 7. The High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Dana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2024 (4) RLW 2917, the High Court of Rajasthan has observed as under:- “13. The reason for denial of appointment to the petitioner is the pendency of the criminal case and the Clause-1 Sub-clause-7 of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019. It is an admitted fact that the allegations made against the petitioner in the chargesheet in criminal case has not been considered by any Committee or the Competent Authorities of the respondent-Department as per the parameters provided in the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019. The provisions of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 cannot be applied mechanically by the respondents and merely on the fact that petitioner is involved in any criminal case, the respondents cannot deny the appointment to the him. A close reading of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 shows that each 8 individual case, in which charge-sheet has been filed, is required to be examined by the competent authorities for the purpose of reaching to the conclusion as to whether the character of a candidate is above board or not and whether a person can be denied appointment on the ground of his bad character or whether a person is holding the certificate of good character or not? 14. This Court is firmly of the view that the respondents are under an obligation to examine each case, considering the facts and circumstances o the criminal case, as well as involvement/allegation against the candidate in order to reach a conclusion that whether a candidate/person can be said to be of good character or not in light of the guidelines set forth in the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019. 15. A close reading of 09 points mentioned in Clause-1 of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 shows that to deny the appointment on the ground of under trial/conviction of a candidate for certain offences could be said to be illustrative only and this list cannot be said to be exhaustive. The principle for arriving at a decision that a person is not entitled for appointment in the services of the State is based on the fact that whether the act/offer committed by a candidate/person involves moral turpitude or not? If a person has committed an act which can come 9 in the ambit of moral turpitude and act done by such person shall have negative impact in discharge of his duties on the post on which he will be appointed, then in these two situations person/candidate is certainly dis- entitled for appointment on that post. There could be violation of certain Acts under which an offene committed which are not elaborated or mentioned in Clause-1 of circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 but the same may constitute an offence involving moral turpitude which may dis entitle a person for Government job. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, each individual case is required to be examined from the angle that whether the act/offence committed by such person involves moral turpitude or not and whether a person who has committed such act can be granted a certificate of 'Good character or not. Without examining each case on the facts and circumstances of that criminal case, the candidature cannot be rejected merely on the ground that an FIR/Charge-sheet has been fled under one of the offences enumerated in Clause-1 of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019. 10 16. This Court is of the view that a person is not entitled for appointment in the State Services, if his acts constitute an act of moral turpitude and the same could affect the work negatively on the post for which he is being appointed. In the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 for the purpose of character verification, it has been mentioned that even the conviction by a Court of law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if the same involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has its object to overthrow by violent means of a Government as established by law, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification Likewise, other incidents in which a candidate is said to be involved may necessarily do not give an indication that the said person could not hold good character. Before reaching to the conclusion as to whether a person is unfit to be appointed in the Government job or not, each case is required to be scrutinized by the competent authorities considering the facts involved in that particular criminal case. 17. In the present case, since the respondents have not examined the case of the petitioner in light of the circular/notification dated 04.12.2019 and have directly 11 reached to the conclusion that since the petitioner is involved in the criminal case, he is not entitled for a Government job in pursuance of the selection, is de-hors the law.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “3. It cannot be disputed that the whole idea of verification of character and antecedents is that the person suitable for the post in question is appointed. It is one of the important criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment is made. An incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. Mere involvement in some petty kind of case would not render a person unsuitable for the job. Way back in the year 1983, in State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi [State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi, (1983) 2 SCC 145 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 371 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 263] , where a teacher was employed in a municipal school which was taken over by the Government and who was absorbed in government service in 1972 subject to verification of antecedents and medical fitness. The termination order was passed on the basis of a report made by the Superintendent of Police to the effect that the respondent was not a fit person to be entertained in 12 government service, as he had taken part in “RSS and Jan Sangh activities”. There was no allegation of involvement in subversive activities. It was held that such activities were not likely to affect the integrity of individual's service. To hold otherwise would be to introduce “McCarthyism” into India which is not healthy to the philosophy of our Constitution. It was observed by this Court that most students and most young men who take part in political activities and if they do get involved in some form of agitation or the other, is it to be to their ever lasting discredit? Sometimes they feel strongly on injustice and resist. They are sometimes pushed into the forefront by elderly persons who lead and mislead them. Should all these young men be debarred from public employment? Is government service such a heaven that only angels should seek entry into it? This Court has laid down that the whole business of seeking police report about the political belief and association of the past political activities of a candidate for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 4. This Court has considered in Ramashanker Raghuvanshi case [State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi, (1983) 2 SCC 145 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 371 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 263] the decision in Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles [Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 95 L Ed 13 1317 : 341 US 716 (1951) : 1951 SCC OnLine US SC 77] thus : (SCC pp. 151 & 153, paras 5-6 & 10) “5. In another loyalty oath case, Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles [Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 95 L Ed 1317 : 341 US 716 (1951) : 1951 SCC OnLine US SC 77] , Douglas, J. had this to say : (SCC OnLine US SC paras 49-50) ‘49. … Here the past conduct for which punishment is exacted is single—advocacy within the past five years of the overthrow of the Government by force and violence. In the other cases the acts for which Cummings and Garland stood condemned covered a wider range and involved some conduct which might be vague and uncertain. But those differences, seized on here in hostility to the constitutional provisions, are wholly irrelevant. Deprivation of a man's means of livelihood by reason of past conduct, not subject to this penalty when committed, is punishment whether he is a professional man, a day labourer who works for private industry, or a government employee. The deprivation is nonetheless unconstitutional whether it be for one single past act or a series of past acts. … 14 50. Petitioners were disqualified from office not for what they are today, not because of any programme they currently espouse (cf. Gerende v. Board of Supervisors [Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 95 L Ed 745 : 341 US 56 (1951) : 1951 SCC OnLine US SC 41] ), not because of standards related to fitness for the office, cf. Dent v. West Virginia [Dent v. West Virginia, 32 L Ed 623 : 129 US 114 (1889) : 1889 SCC OnLine US SC 9] ; Hawker v. New York [Hawker v. New York, 42 L Ed 1002 : 170 US 189 (1898) : 1898 SCC OnLine US SC 69] , but for what they once advocated.’ 6. In the same case, Frankfurter, J. observed : (Garner case [Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 95 L Ed 1317 : 341 US 716 (1951) : 1951 SCC OnLine US SC 77] , SCC OnLine US SC para 29) ‘29. The needs of security do not require such curbs on what may well be innocuous feelings and associations. Such curbs are indeed self-defeating. They are not merely unjustifiable restraints on individuals. They are not merely productive of an atmosphere of repression uncongenial to the spiritual vitality of a democratic society. The inhibitions which they engender are hostile to the best conditions for securing a high-minded and high-spirited public service.’ 15 10. We are not for a moment suggesting that even after entry into government service, a person may engage himself in political activities. All that we say is that he cannot be turned back at the very threshold on the ground of his past political activities. Once he becomes a government servant, he becomes subject to the various rules regulating his conduct and his activities must naturally be subject to all rules made in conformity with the Constitution.” At the same time, this Court has also observed that after entry into government service, a person has to abide by the service rules in conformity with the Constitution. 5. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre [T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, 1988 Supp SCC 795 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 121] had considered a case where the employee had suppressed the fact that during emergency he had been convicted in a case registered under the Defence of India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion. This Court has laid down that cancelling the offer of appointment due to such non-disclosure was illegal and the employer was directed to appoint him as a lower division clerk. Thus, this Court has taken the view that non-disclosure of the aforesaid case was not a material suppression on the basis of which employment could have been denied and the person 16 adjudged unsuitable for being appointed as an LDC. This Court has laid down thus : (SCC p. 795, para 2) “2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the special facts and circumstances of this case we feel that the appellant should not have been denied the employment on the sole ground that he had not disclosed that during emergency he had been convicted under the Defence of India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and also the order dated 1-8-1983 cancelling the offer of appointment. The respondents shall issue the order of appointment to the appellant within three months appointing him as a lower division clerk, if he is not otherwise disqualified, with effect from the date on which he assumes duty. It is open to the respondents to employ the appellant at any place of their choice. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the order dated 12.04.2023, annexed with the reply as Annexure R/1, is not in accordance with law. By the said order, the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment on the ground that he failed to complete the attestation formalities within the stipulated time, as a result of which his character verification could not be conducted in time, and further on the ground that the relaxation period granted by the State had also expired. Consequently, it has been held that 17 the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment to the post of ASI (M). However, such a conclusion is unsustainable in the eyes of law, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had duly submitted the medical documents as directed by the competent authority, yet his physical verification was not conducted. Moreover, the delay in completing the attestation formalities, by itself, cannot be made a sole ground to deny the petitioner the benefit of compassionate appointment, especially when the circumstances indicate that the petitioner had substantially complied with the requirements and the lapse, if any, was not entirely attributable to him. 10. Compassionate appointments are granted with the object of providing immediate financial and social support to the family of a deceased employee, who was the sole breadwinner, and who died while in service. The underlying purpose of such appointments is to alleviate the sudden distress and hardship caused to the dependents due to the untimely demise of the earning member, thereby ensuring that the family is not left in a state of penury and is able to sustain itself with dignity. 11. In the present matter, the deceased employee, Jitendra Singh Rangi, is survived by his widow, petitioner No. 1, and his son, petitioner No. 2. It is pertinent to note that the entire process and requisite formalities relating to the claim for compassionate appointment had already been duly completed during the years 2021–2022. In such circumstances, the denial of compassionate 18 appointment on the grounds mentioned in the letter dated 12.04.2023 is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained in law, particularly when the said communication was not even duly served upon the petitioners. 12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the application of Petitioner No. 2 for grant of compassionate appointment warrants fresh consideration. Accordingly, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of Petitioner No. 2 for compassionate appointment and to pass an appropriate, reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. 13. This be done within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 20.2.2026 15.4.2026 - 15.4.2026 Raghu Jat