1 2025:CGHC:61307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8958 of 2023 1 - Manish Shandilya S/o Late Ishwar Chandra Shandilya Aged About 33 Years R/o 54/83, Sector- 03, Road No. 4, Professor Colony, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Inspector General Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Headquarter, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director General Of Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Commandant 4th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapan K. Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent(s)State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 16/12/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authority to consider the application of the petitioner and his mother for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on appropriate/suitable post and pass suitable order within stipulated period of time. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner within stipulated period of time. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is not assailing or challenging any specific order passed by the respondent authorities, but is merely seeking an appropriate direction from this Hon’ble Court commanding the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s long-pending application for grant of an appropriate post, which has remained undecided for an inordinately long period without any justifiable reason. The father of the petitioner, namely late Ishwar Shandilya, died in harness on 28.04.2019 while serving as a Deputy Soldier (Additional 3 Superintendent of Police), whereafter the petitioner’s mother submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment for her elder son, i.e., the petitioner. Upon consideration of the said application, the respondent authorities granted compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (GD). Thereafter, on 17.07.2019, the petitioner along with his mother submitted a detailed representation requesting the authorities to consider and grant the petitioner an appropriate post commensurate with his excellent educational qualifications, as well as with due regard to the status of the post held by his deceased father, and expressing their consent in that regard. Despite the said representation and several subsequent representations made from time to time, the respondent authorities have failed to consider or decide the same till date, compelling the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court by filing the present petition seeking a direction for expeditious consideration of his claim. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely Late Ishwar Shandilya, died on 28.04.2019 while in active service as a Deputy Soldier (Additional Superintendent of Police) in the 4th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, leaving behind his widow and two sons as his only legal heirs, as evidenced by the death certificate. It is further submitted that soon after his demise, on 28.05.2019, the petitioner’s mother submitted a complete application along with all requisite 4 documents seeking compassionate appointment for her elder son, i.e., the petitioner, and thereafter, on 16.07.2019, respondent No.4 accorded consent for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (GD). Learned counsel further submits that on 17.07.2019, the petitioner’s mother made a specific representation requesting consideration of the petitioner for an appropriate and suitable post commensurate with his excellent educational qualifications and keeping in view the status and rank held by his deceased father, which representation is on record, however, despite several subsequent representations and reminders made by the petitioner and his mother, the respondent authorities have neither considered the claim nor passed any order thereon. It is also emphasized that neither the petitioner nor any family member has received any monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment, that the petitioner is unemployed and has no independent source of income, and that the deceased father was the sole earning member of the family, due to whose untimely death the entire responsibility of maintaining the family has fallen upon the petitioner, resulting in severe financial hardship. Learned counsel contends that the inaction of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of settled principles governing compassionate appointment, particularly when similarly situated persons have been granted compassionate appointment as per their qualifications, as revealed from the RTI Appeal No.143/2022 decided on 05.01.2023, and that despite continuous 5 personal approaches and representations, the respondents have only procrastinated the matter without taking any decision, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after the death of the deceased employee, the mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in favour of her son. Upon due consideration of the said application, the competent authority, vide order dated 16.07.2019, informed the petitioner's mother that in terms of Clause 7(1) of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 14.06.2013, compassionate appointment can be granted only to a dependent on a Class-III post, and accordingly offered appointment on the post of Constable (GD), seeking consent within two days. However, instead of accepting the same, the petitioner's mother requested appointment on the higher post of Assistant Sub- Inspector (M) on the basis of the petitioner’s qualifications. It is further submitted that the very object of compassionate appointment is only to tide over the sudden financial crisis faced by the family due to the death of the sole earning member, and such appointment is neither a vested right nor a mode of regular recruitment, but merely a concession governed strictly by the policy. Compassionate appointment is subject to administrative discretion and satisfaction of the competent authority, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right for a particular post or higher cadre. Merely because some other candidates may have been 6 granted appointment on higher posts, the petitioner cannot claim parity, as each case depends upon administrative discretion and policy compliance. As per Clause 20(1) of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, once an appointment is granted on a particular post, the same cannot be altered at the choice of the candidate, as also clarified by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, vide letter dated 06.05.2025. It is reiterated that compassionate appointment is not meant to confer status on the family, nor can a dependent seek appointment to a post higher than that held by the deceased employee as a matter of right, even if he fulfils the eligibility criteria. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 8776–8779 of 2023, the claim of the petitioner appears to be wholly devoid of merit and without any legal foundation, as the petitioner cannot seek or insist upon compensation or appointment to any specific post as a matter of right. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a vested or enforceable right but is a concession extended by the employer solely with the object of providing immediate financial relief and succour to the bereaved family of a deceased 7 employee, so as to enable them to tide over the sudden crisis arising out of the death of the breadwinner. Consequently, a person appointed on compassionate grounds cannot claim appointment to a particular or specific post of his or her choice, nor can such appointment be equated with regular recruitment, as its purpose is limited and humanitarian in nature, aimed only at mitigating immediate hardship rather than conferring any permanent or preferential entitlement. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat