1 2025:CGHC:59544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3773 of 2023 1 - Smt Suman Dewangan Wife Of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 43 Years Caste-Panika, Resident Of Village/post Darripara, Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Devendra Kumar Son Of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 21 Years Caste- Panika, Resident Of Village/post Darripara, Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Janpad Panchayat, Through The Chief Executive Officer, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Panchayat, Through The C.E.O., District Panchayat Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1. that, the respondents may kindly be directed to submit the entire records as regards the petitioner's case. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2. that, the respondents may kindly be quash the Order passed by respondent No. 2 Chief Executive Officer, vide No. 278 / Janpad Panchayat / Deputy Director Panchayat / Estt. Branch/2023, Surajpur, Dated 13.2.2023. Further, may kindly be directed to consider the claim of petitioner No. 2 regarding compassionate appointment in his favour. As the petitioner is poor her case may be considered benevolently. 10.3. that, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any order or issue any suitable writ as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, reveal that the petitioner's husband, late Shri Jagdish Prasad, was serving as a Panchayat Secretary under Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, and unfortunately died in harness on 08.11.2011 (Annexure P/2). Despite the death of a Government employee, no authority approached the petitioner with the prescribed format or guidance for seeking compassionate appointment. Left without assistance, the petitioner herself submitted a representation on 28.11.2011 (Annexure P/3), followed by a formal application in the prescribed format on 30.12.2011 (Annexure P/4). Over the years, the petitioner submitted several representations requesting compassionate appointment either for herself or, upon attaining majority, for her son Devendra Kumar, accompanied by affidavits and no-objection certificates from legal heirs (Annexure P/5), but none were decided by the authorities. Instead, the respondents passed multiple orders at different stages, sometimes declaring her ineligible for the post of Secretary and directing consideration for Class-IV posts, and later claiming that no such posts were vacant, thereby frustrating her claim (Annexure P/6). Meanwhile, both the 3 petitioner and her son acquired all requisite educational qualifications for the relevant posts (Annexure P/7). The petitioner has also placed reliance on the applicable compassionate appointment policies, including subsequent amendments in force at the time of her husband’s death (Annexure P/8). Ultimately, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan, passed the impugned rejection order dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P/1). Throughout this period, the respondents neither guided the petitioner nor processed her claim in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy, leaving her representations pending for over a decade. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is fully entitled to compassionate appointment since the deceased employee, her husband and the father of petitioner No. 2, was a permanent Panchayat Secretary who died in harness, thereby bringing the family into sudden financial distress. At the time of his death, petitioner No. 1 was the widow, and petitioner No. 2 was a minor, making it impossible for either of them to claim employment immediately; hence, the respondents were under a legal and moral obligation to extend compassionate appointment to stabilize the family during the crisis. It is submitted that despite the deceased having rendered long years of service, his legal heirs are being subjected to discrimination and arbitrary treatment, as their claim has remained undecided for an inordinately long period without any lawful justification. The respondents cannot deny compassionate appointment under the die- in-harness scheme when all the requisite conditions stand fulfilled. Therefore, a direction is required to be issued to the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner so that she and her family may sustain 4 themselves. It is further urged that the claim of petitioner No. 2, the son of the deceased employee, now having attained majority, has never been considered by the respondents, which is illegal and contrary to the scheme’s objectives. His claim also deserves to be decided expeditiously in the interest of justice. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the petition, submitting that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and can be granted only strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and availability of suitable vacancies. It is argued that the petitioner’s claim was duly examined, and she was found unsuitable for the post of Panchayat Secretary and later no Class-IV vacancy was available for consideration. The petitioner and her son repeatedly failed to satisfy the eligibility conditions at the relevant time, and delayed claims cannot be entertained after lapse of many years from the date of death. It is further submitted that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course or inheritance, and the impugned order rejecting the claim is fully justified and in accordance with law. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 6. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by Respondent No.2 (Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan, Surajpur) and seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of Petitioner No.2 (the son) for compassionate appointment and to deal with the petitioner’s claim benevolently in view of her acute financial plight. 5 7. On a careful perusal of the material placed on record, including the death certificate of the deceased employee (Annexure P/2), the petitioner’s initial representations and formal application (Annexures P/3 and P/4), subsequent correspondence exchanged between the parties (Annexure P/5), documents evidencing the acquisition of requisite qualifications by the petitioner and her son (Annexure P/7), the impugned order (Annexure P/1), as well as the relevant provisions of the compassionate appointment policy (Annexure P/8), certain aspects clearly emerge. It stands established that the deceased was a permanent employee who died in harness, leaving behind dependants who were financially vulnerable at the material time. The petitioner diligently and promptly pursued her claim, repeatedly following up with the authorities, yet the respondents failed to process the claim in a time-bound or reasoned manner. Their stand has shifted at various stages, from stating that the petitioner was “not fit for Secretary,” to suggesting consideration for a Class-IV post, and later citing “no vacancy”, all without any cogent explanation or supporting records to show that the petitioner was given a fair and transparent assessment or that the vacancies were genuinely unavailable. Furthermore, it is evident that the claim of Petitioner No. 2, the son of the deceased employee, has never been adjudicated on its merits after he attained majority, leaving his entitlement unresolved. 8. Administrative schemes for compassionate appointment are intended to provide succour to dependants left in sudden distress by the death of a Government servant. While such schemes are not to be treated as creating a vested proprietary right, they do create a legitimate 6 expectation that claims meeting the prescribed criteria will be considered and decided promptly and fairly. An administration that, by inaction, inconsistency or mala fides, defeats the object of the scheme is liable to judicial correction. 9. In the present case the respondents have not discharged their obligation to consider and decide the claim on a fair and reasoned basis. The impugned order dated 13.02.2023 does not satisfactorily explain why the petitioner was found “not fit” for the post of Secretary, why a purported consideration for Class-IV was not followed by a concrete offer, or why, if no vacancy existed, the respondents did not explore the statutory alternatives (preference in future recruitment drives, temporary ex-gratia assistance or other benefits that the policy envisages). Nor is there any evidence that the claim of the son was ever considered upon his attaining majority. 10. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction vested in this Court and keeping in view the accumulated delay, the evident prejudice caused to the petitioner and the purpose of the compassionate appointment policy, interference is warranted. However, equity and the public interest require that directions be framed in a manner that safeguards legitimate administrative concerns while vindicating the petitioner’s rights. 11. The impugned order dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and set aside insofar as it rejects the petitioner’s claim without adhering to a fair, reasoned, and contemporaneous decision-making process. Within eight weeks from today, the respondents shall decide the petitioner’s pending claim and that of Petitioner No. 2 (the son), strictly 7 in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy applicable at the relevant time and subsequent amendments, keeping in view the settled principle that administrative delay or failure to guide an applicant shall not prejudice an otherwise eligible claimant. The decision must be written, reasoned and must address each ground raised, including eligibility, vacancy position, the factual foundation of any prior notation of “not fit,” and any permissible alternative reliefs such as preferential consideration or interim monetary assistance if immediate appointment is not feasible. If, after this process, the respondents conclude that the petitioner or her son meets the policy criteria and a suitable vacancy exists, an appointment order shall be issued within four weeks and implemented. In the event that no vacancy is immediately available but the claimant is otherwise eligible, the respondents shall grant preference in the next recruitment or promotion process for a comparable post and consider interim financial assistance in terms of the applicable policy, specifying the nature and timeline of such relief. The final decision under these directions shall be communicated in writing to both the petitioner and her son, preserving their right to administrative or judicial review, and any adverse findings must be supported by detailed reasons. 12. This Court makes it clear that nothing in this order fetters the respondents’ right to take an independent and lawful view in accordance with the policy; what is required is that the claim be considered promptly, fairly and on the basis of relevant material with reasons recorded. Administrative convenience cannot be permitted to supplant the statutory purpose of compassionate appointment 8 schemes. 13. The writ petition is thus allowed in the manner indicated above. In the event the respondents take an adverse decision without adequate reasons, the petitioner shall have liberty to approach this Court for further appropriate relief, including specific performance of appointment or monetary compensation in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE