1 2025:CGHC:19593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8121 of 2018 • Smt. Supriya Haldar W/o Krishnakant Haldar Aged About 48 Years R/o New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Registrar Cooperative Societies Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattisgarh Rajya Hathkargha Vikash And Vipnan Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Raipur, Through Its Managing Director, B- 26, Sector-7, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Secretary Chhattisgarh, Rajya Hathkargha Vikash And Vipnan, Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Raipur, B-26, Sector-7, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. President Chhattisgarh, Rajya Hathkargha, Vikash And Vipnan, Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Raipur, B-26, Sector-7, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondents No. 3 to 5 : : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Laweyr Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by quashing Annexure P/11 to P/13 and directing Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 respondent no. 3 to act upon the board of resolution dated 29.03.2016 as per minute no. 8, since petitioner has passed class 12th examination as per Annexure P/6 and has completed 02 years probation in class 4th, therefore, suitable direction to comply Annexure P/1 i.e. board of directors decision to the respondent no. 3 be given, so that petitioner may get class-III post and also wages for that post from date of joining soon. 10.2 Costs of the petition be awarded and 10.3 Any other relief or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the late K.K. Haldar was working in the post of Salesman under the respondents. He died in harness on 26.03.2014. The petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment and at the relevant time, she had the qualification of the 10th Class pass, therefore, her claim was considered for the Class-IV post. A resolution was passed by the Board of Directors in the meeting dated 29.03.2016 and the petitioner was offered an appointment to the post of Peon on the pay scale of Rs.4750-7440 Grade Pay of Rs.1300. It was also resolved that if the petitioner passes the Class 12th examination her name would be considered for Class-III post subject to the availability of vacancy. The order of appointment was issued on 11.04.2016 and thereafter the petitioner joined the post of Peon. The petitioner filed this petition on 26.11.2018 claiming appointment to Class-III post on the ground that she has passed the Class 12th examination and according to the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors, the respondent authorities are under an obligation to appoint her to a Class-III post. 3. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner passed the Class 12th examination within two years from the date of appointment and according to the resolution 3 passed by the Board of Directors dated 29.03.2016, the respondents are under an obligation to appoint her on a Class-III post. It is also argued that the petitioner has made representations, but those representations were rejected. He would further contend that earlier, writ petitions were filed and directions were issued to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh. He would also contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment against a Class-III post. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 5 would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner was offered compassionate appointment according to existing rules. They would contend that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the respondents and no assurance was given for appointment on a Class III post. They would further submit that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to a post for which the candidate is not eligible. It is also argued that the petitioner has no right to any particular post of his or her choice and he/she can only claim to be considered for any post. It is also submitted that if there was any assurance on the part of the respondents that cannot be a ground to claim appointment to a Class III post. In support thereof, they would place reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. and Others Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 661. They would further argue that in the policy for compassionate appointment, there is no such provision to switch the services from a lower post to a higher post after acquiring higher 4 qualifications. They would further contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. They would further contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner namely Mr. K.K. Haldar died in harness on 26.03.2014. She applied for compassionate appointment. She was offered the appointment against a Class-IV post and she accepted it. The order of appointment was issued on 11.04.2016. The petitioner joined the services. In between, she passed the Class 12th examination and thereafter claimed appointment against a Class-III post. The claim of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent authorities. 7. In the matter of Ramesh Kumar Sharma (supra), the respondent was offered the post of Lower Division Clerk on his prayer for compassionate appointment, but he refused and claimed the post of A.P.P. Grade-II for which he had the requisite qualification. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under the rules of compassionate appointment, the respondent had no right to any particular post of his choice and he can only claim to be considered for the post. It is also observed that the mistake committed by the Government in giving compassionate appointment earlier to a dependent to the post of A.P.P. Grade-II can be no ground for the Government in repeating the same mistake by offering compassionate appointment to a dependent to a post above the rank of Lower Division Clerk and the State cannot be permitted to commit the same mistake. 5 8. In the matter of I.G. (Karmik) and Others Vs. Prahlad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the right of compassionate appointment is exercised and exhausted, no further or second consideration for a higher post arises. 9. In the matter Anusuiya Oti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. passed in WPS No. 4324 of 2015, the coordinate bench held that once a person accepts compassionate appointment, a subsequent claim for change or up-gradation of the post is impermissible, amounting to an attempt to claim “endless compassion”, which has been disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The appointment under the scheme is subject to the availability of the post, administrative discretion, and satisfaction of other procedural requirements. Though the petitioner’s claim was recommended for the post of Class-III post, but final appointment was made to the post of Peon. The petitioner despite disagreement, joined the said post. 11. Applying the ratio laid down in the above-referred cases to the facts of the present case, once the petitioner has been appointed, the claim for up-gradation to a Class-III post is not legally sustainable. Acceptance of the appointment amounts to exhausting one-time benefit. There cannot be endless negotiation or choice in such appointments, which are an exception to the general rules of recruitment. Further, the compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but an exception culled out by the 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. 6 12. In light of the foregoing discussion and the binding precedents cited above, the claim of the petitioner for up-gradation from the post of Peon to a Class-III post is devoid of merits. 13. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No Costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti