1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3182 of 2023 Order Reserved on 24.11.2025 Order Delivered on 11.12.2025 1 - Vinayak Kumar Ramteke S/o. Late Tilak Chand Ramteke Aged About 31 Years Resodent Of - House No. 167/k, Krishna Nagar, Ganesh Chouk, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Managing Director Regd. Office, Oriental House Pb No. 7037, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi. 2 - The Managing Director Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office, Oriental House Pb No. 7037, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi. 3 - Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Officer, Durg, Parmanandbhawan, Rajendra Park Chowk, Post Box No. 51, G.E. Road, Durg Chattisgarh – 79100 .... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Respondents:- Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 1. The present writ petition is being filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering and deciding his application dated 06.10.2021 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, pursuant to the death of his father who was serving under the respondent- Company and expired while in service. Despite the Petitioner’s lawful entitlement and repeated representations, the respondents have failed to take any decision on the said application, compelling the Petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court for appropriate relief. 2. The petitioner’s father, Late Tilak Chand Ramteke, served as Sub- Staff (No. 572837) in the respondent-Company, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, from 08.03.1989 until his death on 23.03.2003 while in service, whereafter the petitioner’s mother, Smt. Sheela Devi Ramteke, submitted an application in September 2003 seeking compassionate appointment; however, no decision was taken by respondent No. 2 for an unduly long period, and with the passage of time the petitioner’s mother advanced in age and became physically incapable of employment, prompting the petitioner to apply for compassionate appointment in lieu of his mother against the vacancy of the 3 deceased employee. It was only after an inordinate delay of nearly two decades that the respondents, vide letter dated 24.03.2023, informed the petitioner’s mother that the compassionate appointment scheme had been discontinued w.e.f. 01.06.2002 and revived only from 01.11.2014, and therefore her application could not be considered. The petitioner submits that he has a legitimate entitlement to compassionate appointment as a dependent of the deceased employee and that the respondents, by not deciding the earlier application for almost 20 years and thereafter taking refuge behind an untenable and belated justification, have acted arbitrarily and unjustly, thereby depriving him of his rightful claim, giving rise to the present petition. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondents No.1 to 4 to pass orders giving suitable appointment to the petitioner against the deceased employee quota on compassionate ground commensurate to the qualification of the petitioner. 10.2 Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father, Late Tilak Chand Ramteke, served as Sub-Staff No. 572837 in the 4 respondent-Company, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, from 08.03.1989 until his death on 23.03.2003 while in service, as evidenced by the Appointment Order, Pay Slips and Death Certificate (Annexures P/1 & P/2). Following his demise, the petitioner’s mother, Smt. Sheela Devi Ramteke, applied in September 2003 for compassionate appointment (Annexure P/3), but the respondents failed to take any decision for an unduly long period, during which she advanced in age and became physically unfit for employment. Consequently, the petitioner submitted an application on 06.12.2021 seeking compassionate appointment in lieu of his mother, duly supported by her written consent (Annexure P/4). However, after an inordinate delay of nearly two decades, the respondents, vide letter dated 24.03.2023, informed the petitioner’s mother that the compassionate appointment scheme had been discontinued from 01.06.2002 to 01.11.2014 and therefore her claim could not be considered, further stating that she had earlier been contacted for one-time financial compensation (Annexure P/5). The petitioner submits that he has a legitimate and rightful claim to compassionate appointment as a dependent of the deceased employee, and the respondents’ belated and untenable justification, coupled with their deliberate failure to act on the original application for more than 20 years, clearly reflects arbitrariness and has unlawfully deprived him of his entitlement, giving rise to the present petition. 5 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father, Late Tilak Chand Ramteke, was a regular Sub-Staff employee of the respondent-Company and died in harness on 23.03.2003, thereby entitling the dependents of the deceased employee to compassionate appointment under the settled policy of the respondent-Company as well as the general scheme prevailing in public sector undertakings as a measure of social security. It is contended that the petitioner’s mother had promptly applied in September 2003 seeking compassionate appointment; however, the respondents failed to take any decision for an inordinately long period, and due to such unexplained delay, the petitioner’s mother grew old and became physically unfit for service. Learned counsel submits that in these circumstances, the petitioner, with the express consent of his mother, filed his application on 06.10.2021 seeking compassionate appointment in lieu of her claim, yet the respondents did not take any action or even communicate a reasoned order. It is further submitted that the respondents, in their belated communication dated 24.02.2023, have themselves admitted the existence of a compassionate-appointment scheme but have rejected the claim on the untenable ground that the scheme was kept in abeyance between 01.06.2002 and 31.10.2014, despite the fact that the petitioner’s application was made well after the revival of the scheme on 01.11.2014. Counsel submits that the respondents, having kept the original claim pending for nearly two decades 6 without any justification, cannot now deny the petitioner’s legitimate right by relying on their own lapse and arbitrary administrative delay. Thus, the inaction of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and the petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the revived policy. Hence, the petition deserved to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has no legal or vested right to claim compassionate appointment in respect of the death of his father, Late Tilakchand Ramteke, who expired on 23.03.2003, as the scheme for compassionate appointment in the respondent- Company had already been withdrawn with effect from 01.06.2002 and remained suspended until its reintroduction on 01.11.2014. It is contended that although the widow of the deceased employee, Smt. Sheela Devi Ramteke, had submitted an application on 19.05.2003 seeking compassionate appointment, the same could not be considered in view of the withdrawal of the scheme; instead, she was duly informed, in accordance with circular dated 17.07.2002, about the availability of a lumpsum monetary compensation, but she did not furnish the requisite documents despite several reminders. Counsel further submits that repeated representations made subsequently in 2011, 2014, 2019, 2021 and thereafter, including the petitioner’s representation dated 06.10.2021, cannot revive a claim that was 7 non-existent under the policy prevailing at the time of the employee’s death. It is urged that the respondents have repeatedly and consistently communicated that compassionate appointment was not permissible due to the non-availability of the scheme during the relevant period, and have also requested completion of formalities for monetary compensation, which remains pending from the petitioner’s side. Therefore, the respondents assert that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed, as no relief can be granted contrary to the policy position prevailing at the time of death of the employee. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is an admitted position that the deceased employee expired on 23.03.2003 while in service. On that date, the policy of the employer did not provide for appointment on compassionate grounds; instead, it contemplated payment of a one-time settlement amount to the dependent family members of an employee dying in harness. It further appears from the record that soon after the death of the employee, the mother of the present petitioner had moved an application seeking compassionate appointment. The said application was considered and was rejected specifically on the ground that the scheme then in force did not permit compassionate appointment and only 8 envisaged a lump-sum ex-gratia settlement. The family thus had contemporaneous notice that only monetary benefit was available under the governing policy. The petitioner has now preferred a fresh application and consequently this petition on the basis that the employer has, with effect from 01.11.2014, introduced a revised policy providing for compassionate appointment to dependents of employees dying in harness. The petitioner seeks benefit of this subsequent policy, notwithstanding the fact that the death occurred more than eleven years prior to the introduction of the new scheme. 9. The primary issue that arises is whether a dependent can claim compassionate appointment under a policy which was not in existence at the time of the employee’s death, and whether such a benefit can be claimed after an inordinate delay when the immediate financial crisis for which such schemes are conceived has long since subsided. 10. It is now well-settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain (2008) 8 SCC 475, that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession carved out as an exception to the constitutional scheme of equality in public employment. The grant of such appointment must strictly conform to the policy framed by the employer. The dependents of a deceased 9 employee cannot insist on compassionate appointment dehors the scheme that was operative at the relevant time. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to a family which has fallen into sudden financial distress due to the untimely death of the breadwinner. It is intended to relieve the family from a “hand-to-mouth” situation and not to create a parallel mode of recruitment or confer hereditary rights in public service. 12. Where the family has survived the initial crisis for many years, and where the application is made after an inordinate lapse of time, the very purpose and foundation of a compassionate appointment scheme stands frustrated. The Courts have consistently held that a belated claim cannot be entertained, because the justification for compassionate appointment as immediate crisis does no longer exists. 13. In the present case, the death occurred in the year 2003, and the revised scheme was introduced only in the year 2014. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the family continued to suffer any extraordinary or ongoing financial destitution that would justify invoking the exception after more than a decade. On the contrary, the initial application by the mother was already considered and rejected in accordance with the then-prevailing 10 scheme, and the family did not pursue any further remedy at the relevant time. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also clarified that dependents cannot seek retrospective application of a scheme introduced many years later so as to unsettle settled matters. The scheme applicable on the date of death or at best the scheme in force when the claim was considered is relevant; however, no authority supports revival of claims long after the immediate crisis has passed, particularly when the earlier consideration had already taken place under the earlier scheme. Further, if such belated claims were entertained on the basis of subsequently introduced schemes, it would result in grave administrative anomalies and would open the floodgates for stale claims, defeating the integrity of public recruitment and violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. In the facts of the present matter, the petitioner thus cannot claim compassionate appointment under the policy which came into existence only in 2014. The petitioner’s family was bound by the scheme applicable in the year 2003, which only contemplated a one-time monetary settlement. The petitioner, therefore, possesses no enforceable right to seek compassionate appointment at this belated stage. 16. Having regard to the above legal position and the facts emerging from the record, this Court finds that the petitioner has 11 failed to make out any case for interference. The claim is otherwise barred by delay and laches, is contrary to the underlying object of compassionate appointment schemes, and is also squarely covered against the petitioner by binding decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha