1 2025:CGHC:55947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8607 of 2023 1 - Devesh Kumar S/o Late Netram Bharti Aged About 32 Years R/o 7th Battalion, C.A.F. Line, Quarter No. U/6, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Revati Bharti W/o Late Netram Bharti Aged About 48 Years R/o 7th Battalion, C.A.F. Line, Quarter No. U/6, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh .. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police Centre Zone Police Head Quarter Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Commandant 7th Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Force Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned orders dated 29.03.2023 and dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) and direct the respondent authority to consider and compassionate appointment Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 grant within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. 10.ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner no. 2, Smt. Revati Bharti, is the widow of late Constable Trade Man (CTM) Netram Bharti, who was employed under the 7th Battalion and passed away in harness on 25th January 2021. At the time of his death, the deceased left behind his wife (petitioner no. 2), his son, Devesh Bharti (petitioner no. 1), his other son, Mukesh Bharti, his daughter-in-law, and two granddaughters, all of whom were wholly dependent on him. On 9th March 2021, petitioner no. 1, Devesh Bharti, submitted an application for compassionate appointment to the relevant authorities. Subsequently, the application was forwarded to the Director General of Police (DIG) on 15th July 2021, but no action was taken for an extended period. Reminders were sent by the petitioner on 22nd June 2022 and 28th June 2022. On 7th July 2022, the Commandant of the concerned battalion sent another reminder to the DIG for the consideration of the application for compassionate appointment (Annexure P-6). However, on 22nd July 2022, the petitioner was informed that the application had been rejected because one of the deceased's sons, Mukesh Bharti, was already employed in the police department. In response to the rejection, the petitioner submitted further applications on 4th August 2022 and 8th August 2022, clarifying that at the time of the deceased’s death on 25 th January 2021 and at the time of the application for compassionate appointment on 9th March 2021, Mukesh Bharti was not employed in any Government position. He had only secured a Government job on 2nd July 2021, six months after the death of his father. The petitioner argued that, as per the compassionate appointment policy, since Mukesh Bharti was not employed at the time of his father’s death, petitioner no. 1, Devesh Bharti, should be eligible for 3 compassionate appointment. These applications were forwarded by the Commandant to the higher authorities on 5th and 16th August 2022. Additionally, the petitioner submitted a copy of Mukesh Bharti's Government appointment certificate (Annexure P-9). The petitioner also submitted affidavits/consent letters from the family members, including Mukesh Bharti, affirming that they had no objection to the appointment of Devesh Bharti and that Mukesh Bharti was living separately and not financially supporting the family (Annexure P-10). The petitioner emphasized that the compassionate appointment policy, dated 23rd February 2019, explicitly states that a compassionate appointment cannot be denied based on the employment status of a family member at the time of the deceased employee's death unless the family member was already a Government employee at the time of death. Since Mukesh Bharti was not employed in Government service at the time of his father’s death, petitioner no. 1, Devesh Bharti, was entitled to compassionate appointment. The petitioner further contended that the delay in considering the application, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, should not be used to deny the claim for compassionate appointment, as other applications had been processed within six months despite the same delay. On 29th March 2023, the Secretary of the Home Department informed petitioner no. 2 that since one son, Mukesh Bharti, was already employed in a Government position, the petitioner could not be granted compassionate appointment. However, on 10th October 2023, the petitioner was finally informed that she was entitled to compassionate appointment. In light of the above facts, the petitioner moved an application on 16th May 2023 requesting reconsideration, emphasizing that at the time of the death of the deceased employee, no family member was employed in Government service. The petitioner asserts that, as per settled legal principles, compassionate appointments should be made strictly in accordance with the policy in place at the time of death, and in this case, since no family member was employed 4 in a Government job at the time of the deceased's death, the denial of compassionate appointment is unsustainable. Hence, this petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the actions of the respondents in denying the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment are arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. The application filed by petitioner for compassionate appointment has been delayed without any valid justification, and the reasons provided by the respondents are untenable. It is submitted that had the application been considered in a timely manner, i.e., within one or two months of submission, the petitioner would have been entitled to compassionate appointment. The respondents cannot now deny the petitioner’s entitlement to compassionate appointment based on the mere fact that a family member obtained Government employment after the death of the deceased employee. It is further contended that if a family member secured employment after the application for compassionate appointment was filed, such an employment cannot retroactively affect the petitioner’s right to compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for petitioner further highlights that the respondents have cited the delay in processing the application due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but this excuse is inconsistent with the facts of the case. It is pointed out that despite the pandemic, other applications for compassionate appointment within the same department were processed and considered within six months, whereas the application filed by petitioner remained pending for an unreasonable period. This selective delay is not only unfair but also discriminatory. Additionally, the learned counsel for petitioner draws attention to the letter from the Department, dated 29th March 2023, wherein it was stated that the petitioner could not be granted compassionate appointment because one of the deceased’s sons, Mukesh Bharti, had already secured a Government job. However, the learned counsel for petitioner asserts that this reasoning is flawed, as the son had only joined 5 the Government service on 2nd July 2021, six months after the death of the petitioner’s husband. As such, at the time of the deceased's death and when the application for compassionate appointment was made, no family member was employed in a Government position, and therefore, the petitioner should be entitled to compassionate appointment under the applicable policy. The learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that the petitioner filed a request for reconsideration on 16th May 2023, stressing that no family member was employed in government service at the time of the deceased’s death. This application was duly submitted, yet the authorities failed to address the issue with due diligence. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the principle of compassionate appointment is well-established in law, and such appointments must be made strictly in accordance with the policy in force at the time of the death of the employee. As per the policy, there is a clear provision that compassionate appointment may be denied only if a family member was employed in a Government job prior to the death of the employee. Since no family member of the deceased was employed in Government service at the time of his death, the denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is wholly unsustainable. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the petitioners' challenge to the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) is without merit and should be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right, as compassionate appointments are governed strictly by the policy in force at the time of consideration, and not based on the circumstances at the time of death. The State policy, as outlined in Clause 6(A) of the compassionate appointment policy dated 23rd February 2019, clearly stipulates that if any member of the deceased’s family is already employed in Government service, no other family member is eligible for compassionate appointment. In the present case, it is admitted that the 6 petitioner’s brother, Mukesh Bharti, had secured Government employment as a Constable (GD) on 2nd July 2021, which was after the death of the petitioner’s father but before the consideration of the application for compassionate appointment on 15th July 2022. Therefore, in accordance with the clear provisions of the compassionate appointment policy, the petitioner was rightly declared ineligible for compassionate appointment due to the employment of a family member in Government service. The learned State counsel further relies on the Supreme Court decision in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC 617, which holds that the norms applicable at the time of consideration of the application, and not at the time of death, should govern the eligibility for compassionate appointment. In this case, at the time of consideration, Mukesh Bharti was already employed in Government service, making the petitioner ineligible as per the policy. In light of these submissions and the clear policy provisions, the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) are legal, just, and in accordance with the policy, and there is no infirmity in the decisions made by the respondents. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merit and should be dismissed at the threshold. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. The primary challenge raised by the petitioner is against the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2), which were passed by the respondents rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. The petitioner argues that the compassionate appointment policy mandates that an applicant’s eligibility be determined based on the employment status of family members at the time of the employee’s death, and since no family member was employed in Government service at the time of the deceased's death, the petitioner contends that the rejection was illegal. However, the Court notes that the respondents have correctly applied the compassionate appointment policy, 7 specifically Clause 6(A) of the policy dated 23rd February 2019. The policy stipulates that if any family member of the deceased Government employee is already employed in Government service at the time of the deceased’s death or during the consideration of the application, other family members will be ineligible for compassionate appointment. 7. In the present case, while it is true that the brother of petitioner, Mukesh Bharti, was not employed in Government service at the time of the deceased's death, he secured employment as a Constable (GD) on 2nd July 2021, well before the consideration of the application submitted by petitioner on 15th July 2022. The issue, therefore, lies not with the timing of Mukesh Bharti's employment relative to the date of death but with the fact that, at the time of the consideration of the application, Mukesh Bharti was already in Government service. Under Clause 6(A), this made the petitioner ineligible for compassionate appointment. 8. The Court observes that the policy is clear and unambiguous in this regard, and the respondents have acted in accordance with the law. Further, the argument raised by the petitioner that the delay in considering the application due to the COVID-19 pandemic was unfair is also not persuasive. While the delay is regrettable, it is noted that other applications within the same department were processed more promptly, and the delay cannot be used as a basis to override the clear eligibility criteria established by the compassionate appointment policy. In this case, the employment of brother of petitioner in Government service at the time of the consideration of the application directly impacts the eligibility of petitioner, and thus the rejection of the application for compassionate appointment was entirely justified. 9. In view of the above, the Court finds that the respondents’ actions in rejecting the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment were in strict accordance with the applicable policy, and the impugned orders (Annexures 8 P-1 and P-2) are neither arbitrary nor illegal. The petitioner’s request for reconsideration and the relief sought in the petition cannot be granted. 10. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. There is no merit in the challenge raised by petitioner to the impugned orders, and the same are upheld. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE