1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6580 of 2023 1 - Sunil Kumar Meshram S/o Late Prabhu Das Meshram Aged About 34 Years R/o Behind Mundra Kunj, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its President Head Office, 15, Recreation Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager (Administration) Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Regional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional Office Rajnandgaon, G.E. Road, Near Mundrakunj, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. N.Naha Roy, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04.12.2025 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8/7/22 (Annexure P-5) whereby petitioner application for compassionate appointment has been rejected which is illegal, perverse and against the provision of law. 2. In the instant petition, the petitioner’s father namely Late Prabhudas Meshram died in harness on 25/2/20 while working on the post of Office Attendant in the office of Respondents. Immediately, after performing the essential ceremonies, the petitioner preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment with no objection certificate of other family members. The respondent authorities vide impugned order dated 8/7/22, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that at present there is no vacant post of office attendant available despite the petitioner submission that he is ready to work at any place where the posts are available but till date no heed has been paid to the petitioner request and the petitioner and her family is facing financial crunch and thus, the impugned order on part of respondent authorities is illegal, perverse and against the provision of law. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- 3 “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 8/7/22 (Annexure P-5) and direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the present petitioner at any place or alternatively grant him the ex gratia payment in the interest of justice and for the proper adjudication of the case. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the selection process for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to grant the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 4. Facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father, Late Prabhudas Meshram, who was serving as an Office Attendant under the respondents, died in harness on 25.02.2020 and immediately after completing the essential ceremonies, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment along with the no- objection of other family members and fulfilled the requisite educational qualification by passing the 12th standard. The respondents internally scrutinized the claim vide letter dated 17.03.202 and the petitioner’s family thereafter suffered extreme financial distress, and the petitioner’s mother, Smt. Sushila Meshram, also passed away due to cancer for want of proper 4 treatment. Despite the grave hardship, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment vide the impugned order dated 08.07.2022 on the ground of non- availability of a vacant post of Office Attendant, which was communicated to the petitioner on 30.07.2022. Although the petitioner orally represented for appointment against any other available vacant post, no action has been taken by the authorities and the impugned rejection order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the factual circumstances, compelling the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned rejection of compassionate appointment is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the very object of the scheme, as the petitioner, belonging to a family that lost both parents and is facing acute financial distress, is fully qualified and had promptly applied for compassionate appointment after the death of her father, yet the respondents rejected the claim solely on the ground of non- availability of a post at Rajnandgaon without considering the petitioner’s willingness to accept appointment at any other place where vacancies admittedly exist. He submits that the respondents, being a State authority, were duty-bound to consider the petitioner’s case in a fair, reasonable and non-technical manner in consonance with the policy framed by them, however, their action reflects non-application of mind and defeats the very purpose of providing immediate financial relief to the family of a 5 deceased employee and therefore, the impugned action deserves to be set aside and suitable directions be issued for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has proceeded under a wholly misconceived assumption in alleging that the impugned order dated 08.07.2022 is illegal or perverse, whereas the respondent–Bank has duly examined the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the prevailing rules and policy. He submits that although the request of the petitioner was considered with due sympathy, the same could not be acceded to owing to the non- availability of any vacancy in the post of Office Assistant, which was the post held by the deceased employee, and in such circumstances the Bank was legally prohibited from making any appointment. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, (1996) 4 SCC 560, has categorically held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted in absence of a sanctioned vacancy and that no direction can be issued to create a supernumerary post. It is stated that in strict adherence to the said settled law, the respondent–Bank rejected the petitioner’s claim as no post of Office Assistant was available and therefore, the impugned order is lawful, justified and passed after proper consideration, leaving no ground for interference by this Hon’ble Court. 6 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The undisputed facts are that the father of the petitioner, who was the sole bread-winner of the family, expired on 25.02.2020. The petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment within the time prescribed under the relevant rules/policy. The same was, however, rejected by the respondent solely on the ground that “no posts are available at present”. It is well-settled by established policy and judicial pronouncements that the object of compassionate appointment is purely humanitarian — to mitigate sudden economic distress caused to the dependent family on account of death of the earning member and to restore, as far as possible, the family to a state of subsistence. The compassionate appointment is not a bounty or concession to be denied on technical or hyper-formal grounds where the application is made within time and the claimant otherwise satisfies the relevant eligibility conditions. 9. On a bare perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner’s application was filed in time and that no adverse material is placed on record to show that the petitioner is disqualified from being considered for compassionate appointment. The only ground urged by the respondents for rejection is the absence of an instantaneous vacancy. To treat non-availability of a post as a conclusive answer to a timely and 7 otherwise eligible claim for compassionate appointment would, in the facts of this case, frustrate the very purpose of the scheme and would be contrary to the humanitarian object underlying the policy. While the respondents are entitled to apply the rules governing compassionate appointment and to ensure that appointments are made in accordance with prescribed procedure, such procedural considerations cannot be allowed to outweigh the substantive humanitarian object of the policy. Where an eligible dependent files an in-time application, the employer must, in the first instance, consider alternative measures permitted by law and policy, such as appointment against any suitable existing vacancy in the same organization, redeployment in the same cadre in sister units, or temporary/contractual appointment pending regular vacancy so as to give effect to the compassionate appointment scheme. 10. In the present case, the respondents have not shown that they considered any alternative feasible course or that they applied their mind to the petitioner’s claim in the light of the objective of the policy. The blanket rejection on the sole ground of “no posts available” without exploring other legally permissible options is therefore unsustainable. 11. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and the object of the compassionate appointment policy, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to relief. The petitioner will, however, be 8 entitled to compassionate appointment only subject to the following conditions which are necessary to protect legitimate administrative concerns and to ensure compliance with relevant rules: “(a) The appointment shall be made only if the petitioner satisfies the essential eligibility criteria prescribed under the applicable compassionate appointment rules (educational/age/other prescribed criteria). (b) Before appointment, the respondents shall carry out the usual verification of antecedents and medical fitness and complete such pre-employment formalities as are normally required. (c) If there exists any absolute bar under law or rules which disqualifies the petitioner, or if adverse material is found in verification, the respondents shall be at liberty to act in accordance with law and place such material before the Court by an appropriate petition; nothing in this order shall be construed as compelling appointment where a statutory disqualification exists.” 12. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction, and in the light of the above, the respondents are directed to take the following steps within the time specified below: (a) Within 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the respondent-bank shall reconsider the petitioner’s 9 application and, if the petitioner is found to meet the essential eligibility requirements after completion of requisite verification and formalities, grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner to any suitable vacancy in the same office/branch/organization. (b) If no immediate permanent vacancy of the requisite cadre is available in the respondent-bank at the relevant place, the respondent shall, instead of simply rejecting the claim on the ground of “no posts available”, either (i) assign the petitioner on compassionate contractual appointment on terms not less favourable than those applicable for compassionate appointments in the bank for an initial period of two years (with usual service benefits as may be permissible under the bank’s rules), or (ii) place the petitioner in any existing vacancy in an equivalent cadre in the same unit/nearby unit, subject to the petitioner meeting the eligibility criteria. Such contractual appointment shall be subject to absorption in a regular vacancy in accordance with bank rules when and if a regular vacancy arises. The course (i) or (ii) shall be adopted after giving effect to banking norms and applicable service rules. (c) On appointment, the petitioner’s seniority and pay shall be regulated in accordance with the bank’s compassionate- appointment policy and relevant rules; any arrears admissible shall be paid in accordance with the rules and subject to statutory deductions. 10 13. The above directions are issued in the spirit of securing the humanitarian object of compassionate appointment while balancing administrative exigencies. The respondents are directed to record in writing the reasons for the course adopted (i.e., whether permanent appointment, contractual appointment or placement in an equivalent vacancy) in the petitioner’s case and to communicate the same to the petitioner within the time limit specified. 14. If the respondents fail to comply with the aforesaid directions within the stipulated period, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court for further relief, including consequential orders for specific performance and costs. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent-bank is directed to take necessary action strictly in accordance with the directions contained herein within 60 days from the date of service of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha