1 2026:CGHC:16877 NAFR Order reserved on 13/04/2026 Order delivered on 07/05/2026 Order uploaded on 07/05/2026 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7437 of 2024 1. Sheena David W/o Harshit David, D/o Late Noel Shailendra Kumar Johns (Noel S. Johns) Aged About 33 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Parijat-19, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. --- Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Through Chairman, Head Office Mahadev Ghat Road, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through General Manager, Head Office Mahadev Ghat Road, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 4. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Branch Manager, Branch Bhimbhori, District Bilaspur, C.G. --- Respondents WPS No. 2878 of 2024 1. Ankita Mishra D/o Late Madan Kumar Panda Aged About 30 Years R/o Premnagar, Bhendra Near Iti, Tahsil Gharghoda, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.05.07 19:12:21 +0530 2 Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through its General Manager Head Office Mahadevghat Road, Sundar Nagar Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Regional Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, 3rd Floor, Maa Bhagwati Shyam Arcade Complex, Near Shyam Petrol Pump, Dhimrapur Road Raigarh District Raigarh (CG) --- Respondents WPS No.2878/2024 For Petitioner : Mr. Ashtosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. N. Naha Rao, Advocate & WPS No.7437/2024 For Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. N. Naha Rao, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Order 1. Basic issue involved in both the above writ petitions requiring determination is similar, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Above writ petitions arise out of denial of appointment on compassionate ground to married daughters of government employees who died-in-harness, on the ground that they are not eligible in terms of existing policy/scheme for compassionate appointment which came in force after death of the employees. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from WPS No.7437/2024. 3 3. Facts of WPS No.7437/2024, in brief, are that father of petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager in respondent Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, died in harness on 30.8.2016. After the death of her father, petitioner being a dependent daughter submitted an application through her mother on 28.11.2016 before respondent No.1 for grant of dependent employment. Petitioner’s application for providing dependent appointment remained pending for considerable period and in the meanwhile, petitioner got married on 8.1.2020. Petitioner’s mother again submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment for her elder married daughter. Vide letter dated 09.08.2024, mother of petitioner was informed that there is no provision in the policy dated 16.03.2019 to grant benefit of compassionate appointment to the married daughter, therefore, petitioner, who is a married daughter of deceased employee, cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Facts of WPS No.2878/2024, in brief, are that father of petitioner, who was working as Office Assistant in respondent Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Gervani, District Raigarh, died in harness on 11.1.2015. After the death of her father, as there was no policy for grant of compassionate appointment, petitioner’s mother submitted an application before respondent No.1 for grant of ex-gratia compensation. 4 Respondent bank approved and made applicable the scheme for grant of compassionate appointment w.e.f. 11.2.2019. Subsequently, pursuant to order of the Central Government dated 14.9.2023, respondent No.1 made applicable the scheme for compassionate appointment in respect of those employees also who died in harness before 05 years of date of scheme applicable and also provided six months’ time to such dependent family member to submit application. Petitioner’s mother submitted an application on 20.10.2023 seeking compassionate appointment for her elder daughter. Vide letter dated 09.04.2024, mother of petitioner was informed that there is no provision in the policy to grant benefit of compassionate appointment to the married daughter, therefore, petitioner, who is a married daughter of deceased employee, cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. It is argued on behalf of petitioners that status of a dependent family member of deceased government employee is to be seen at the time of death of the government servant and not at the time of consideration of grant of compassionate appointment or based on subsequent changes like marriage etc. Since at the time of death of father of petitioners herein, they were unmarried and wholly dependent upon father, the respondent Bank ought not to have rejected claim for grant of 5 compassionate appointment to petitioners. It is submitted that marriage of dependent daughter does not extinguish her right to claim dependent employment being dependent daughter of deceased on the date of his death and unmarried at the time of making application. 6. It is further submitted that petitioner’s father had no male issue and had only daughters, therefore, petitioner’s mother has to solely rely on her daughter. Petitioner even after her marriage is residing with her mother to take care of her, which is evident from the affidavit/declaration submitted by petitioner’s mother wherein she has clearly stated that petitioner and her husband are living with them, they are taking care of them; she has no objection in grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner herein. Hence, the action of respondent Bank in rejecting claim of petitioners for compassionate appointment on the ground that there is no provision in the policy to grant compassionate appointment to married daughter, is not justifiable. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Bank opposes submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that at the time when petitioner’s father died in harness, there was no policy prevalent in respondent Bank to provide appointment on compassionate ground and the dependents of deceased employee were only 6 entitled to an ex-gratia compensation, which was paid to petitioner’s mother (widow of deceased employee). It was only subsequently, in the year 2019, that the policy of compassionate appointment was introduced. By way of an amendment in the year 2023, this policy was made applicable to all deceased employees of the respondent Bank who died in harness after 11.2.2014. As per this policy, employment on compassionate ground can be considered, provided that dependent family member i.e. spouse or wholly dependent son, daughter (including legally adopted son/daughter), was wholly dependent on the employee at the time of his death in harness. ‘Married daughters’ are not included within the definition of ‘dependent family members’. Hence, rejection of application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is in conformity with scheme/policy of compassionate appointment prevailing in respondent Bank which excludes ‘married daughter’ from the zone of consideration for appointment on compassionate basis. He submits that while rejecting claim of compassionate appointment for petitioner, the mother of petitioner was advised to submit fresh application for grant of compassionate appointment to her, but she did not submit any application. 8. He further submits that the compassionate appointment is only available to a dependent of deceased employee who has 7 responsibility to maintain other dependents. Petitioner is a married daughter, who belongs to a completely separate family and dependent on her husband or her matrimonial family, therefore, she cannot be treated as a dependent family member of the deceased. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 10. From the facts placed on record, it is not in dispute that father of respective petitioners were working in respondent Bank as Branch Manager and died in harness on 11.1.2015 and 30.8.2016 respectively. Petitioner through her mother, widow of deceased employee, submitted an application for providing her employment on compassionate ground. At the time of death of deceased employee, petitioners were unmarried. It is also not in dispute that on the date of death of petitioner’s father as also submission of application for grant of compassionate appointment, there was no policy for grant of compassionate appointment, therefore, an amount towards ex-gratia compensation in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground has been paid to petitioner’s mother. 11. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India, vide order dated 7.8.2014 approved the scheme for compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks and called upon the Indian Bankers’ Association to take appropriate action to 8 circulate this scheme to all Public Sectors Banks for adoption of the same with the approval of their respective Boards. It was clarified in order dated 7.8.2014 that this scheme shall be applicable from 5.8.2014. The Indian Bankers’ Association forwarded the scheme of compassionate bank to all Public Sectors banks including respondent Bank for its adoption. The Board of respondent Bank in its meeting dated 11.2.2019 had adopted this scheme w.e.f. 11.2.2019. 12. Thereafter, the Central Government vide letter dated 14.9.2023 (Annexure R-2) advised the banks to consider eligible applicants for appointment on compassionate grounds, in terms of paragraphs 8.2 of the Scheme, in case the death of employee had occurred within five years preceding the adoption of the scheme, subject to the other conditions laid down in the said scheme. Pursuant thereto, respondent Bank vide letter dated 21.10.2023 amended the scheme for compassionate appointment to the effect that the scheme will be applicable to cases of dependents of those employees who died before the adoption of the scheme but within five years of death. Such dependents will be granted six months’ time to apply. 13. From the above chronology of facts and events, it is clear that on the date of death of petitioner’s father i.e. 30.8.2016, there was no scheme prevailing in respondent Bank for 9 compassionate appointment and the scheme for ex-gratia payment was only in force. Petitioner’s mother (widow of deceased employee) has been paid an ex-gratia amount of in lieu of compassionate appointment on account of death of her husband. Scheme for compassionate appointment was adopted by respondent Bank only on 11.2.2019. 14. It is settled legal position that appointment on compassionate ground is not a right but a privilege extended to the dependent family members of employees who died in harness, this privilege emanates from the policy in force and cannot be granted de hors the policy. In case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs Union of India reported in (2011) 4 SCC 299, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the government or public authority. 19.Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme…..” 15. Recently, in case of Tinku vs State of Haryana and others, reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3292, Hon’ble Apex Court 10 has held that in a case where there is no policy, instruction or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted. 16. In case at hand, as there was no policy/scheme of compassionate appointment on the date of death of petitioner’s father facilitating appointment on compassionate ground, the question of petitioner receiving an appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father in the year 2016, does not arise at all. 17. After adoption of scheme for compassionate appointment on 11.2.2019 and incorporation of amendment on 21.10.2023 in scheme making it applicable to the cases of dependents of those employees who died before the adoption of the scheme but within five years of death, petitioner’s mother submitted an application for grant of dependent employment to her elder daughter (petitioner herein) under the amended scheme of compassionate appointment on the ground that she resides with her elder daughter who is completely taking care of her. It is mentioned in this application that petitioner in WPS No.7437/2024 got married on 8.1.2020; petitioner in WPS No.2878/2024 got married in the year 2017 and their respective husband are on a temporary employment. Request of petitioners’ mother was rejected on the sole ground that petitioner is a married daughter. 11 18. Clause 2 of the scheme which governs the compassionate appointment in respondent bank defines the ‘Dependent Family Member’ of the employee who died while in service, which means as follow:- “2.1. Spouse; or 2.2. Wholly dependent son (including legally /adopted son) or 2.3. Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter ) or 2.4. Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee.” 19. A bare reading of above quoted clause makes it clear that dependent family member means a spouse, wholly dependent son or daughter including son or daughter legally adopted by employee during his lifetime or wholly dependent brother and sister in case of unmarried employee. 20. The law on compassionate appointment is well settled. It is not a parallel source of public employment. Nor is it a form of inherited service benefit that automatically passes to a family member upon the death of an employee. It is a narrowly drawn exception to the ordinary rule of recruitment, justified only by the need to relieve a family from sudden financial distress caused by the death in harness of its breadwinner. That is why Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly insisted that such claims must be tested strictly on the terms of the governing scheme, and not on sympathy. 12 21. In case of State Bank of India and another vs Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “8…..The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme…..” 22. In Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021, parties being Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. Somyashreee, Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated well settled position of law of making compassionate appointments in conformity with the norms governing the grant of said appointments by summarizing the law as follows: “7…...(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; (ii) xxxxx (iii) xxxxx (iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;….” 23. In case of N.C. Santosh vs State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions on appointment on compassionate ground, observed and held thus:- 13 "14. This Court in State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010)11 SCC 661 while reiterating that no aspirant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment, declared that the norms that are in force, when the application is actually considered, will be applicable…..” “19.Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.” 24. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WPS No.6689/2012, parties being Purendra Kumar Sinha and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, decided on 06.09.2022, relying on decision rendered in N.C. Santosh (supra), has held thus:- “67. It is seen that with regard to the question as to whether the Policy in force on the date of death of the government employee is to be applied or the Policy at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment is to be considered, there is a divergence of 14 opinion. It is already noticed that a reference was already made in Sheo Shankar Tewai (supra) for consideration of this issue by at least a Bench of minimum three Hon'ble Judges. It is to be noticed that a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken a view that it is the scheme that is holding the field on the date of consideration has to be applied. After noticing the judgment in N.C. Santosh (supra) delivered by a three- Judge Bench, a two-Judge Bench in Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (supra) had noted that the Policy which was in force on the date of death of the government employee should be the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. It was highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that where the benefit under the existing Policy was taken away or substituted with a lesser benefit, the Court directed the application of the new Policy, and in cases where the benefits under an existing Policy were enlarged by a modified Policy after the death of the employee, the Court applied only the Policy that was in force on the date of death of the employee. The same was also explained to the effect that such interpretation was fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law. 68.As of now, there is only one three-Judge Bench decision on the aforesaid issue i.e. in N.C. Santhosh (supra) while all other judgments noticed above are of two-Judge Bench. In the above circumstance, this Court 15 deems it appropriate to follow the principle laid down in N.C. Santosh (supra).” 25. In the light of above settled legal proposition by aforesaid pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to the policy/scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. 26. From the facts of present case, as discussed above, it is clear that respondent Bank amended the policy of compassionate appointment on 21.10.2023 extending concession to the dependents of a deceased employee who died in harness five years before enforcement of the scheme/policy. Only after this amendment in the policy, right to apply for compassionate appointment accrues in favour of dependent member of deceased employees who died prior to five years of adoption of policy by respondent bank. Consequently, the widow of deceased employees i.e. mothers of petitioners herein, submitted application on 23.11.2023 and 23.1.2024 respectively, under the amended scheme, sponsoring name of elder married daughter (petitioner herein) for appointment on compassionate basis. The policy/scheme of compassionate appointment, which is presently in force in the establishment of respondent bank, does not include “married daughter” within the purview of dependent family member for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 16 27. Upon examination of the facts of present case in the light of law laid down in above referred rulings, what this Court finds is that it cannot be said on any count that decision of respondent department in rejecting request for grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner herein (married daughter of deceased) was based on any irrelevant consideration or it suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The policy applicable at the time of consideration of application for providing appointment on compassionate ground to petitioner, excludes a married daughter from the zone of consideration for grant of compassionate appointment and therefore, I am of the opinion that the writ petitions filed by petitioners are devoid of any merits and they are not entitled for the relief of compassionate appointment since their case is not covered by existing policy of compassionate appointment. 28. Needless to mention here that petitioners, in both writ petitions, did not choose to challenge the provisions of existing policy of compassionate appointment, in particular non-inclusion of married daughters within the purview of dependent family member of deceased employee, and in absence thereof, the petitioners cannot seek a direction contrary to express terms of policy/scheme, especially when such an appointment is an exception to the rule of equality in 17 public employment and the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 29. Even after the amendment brought in the policy for compassionate appointment as also after being advised by respondent authorities while rejecting claim for providing compassionate appointment to petitioner, the widow of deceased employee (petitioner’s mother), in both writ petitions, did not chose to submit application for granting compassionate appointment to her. 30. At this stage, it would be apposite to recall the concept and the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment. The very purpose / concept of granting compassionate appointments is to enable the bereaved family to tide over immediate financial constraints of the family of deceased employee. 31. In case of Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Hakim Singh, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85, Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the case of a widow of deceased employee who had applied after a period of 18 years for appointing her son who was four years old when his father died in harness, contending that she could make the application only when her son attained majority. The High 18 Court had allowed writ petition. While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "We are of the view that the High Court has erred in over stretching the scope of the compassionate relief provided by the Board in the circulars as above. It appears that High Court would have treated the provision as a lien created by the Board for a dependent of the deceased employee. If the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The object of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis be-fallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member." 32. In case of State of J&K and others Vs Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766, it is observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that a compassionate appointment to any public office is an exception to the general rule of appointment to such public office and if it is found that the deceased's family survived for long years without any appointment then there is no need for any compassionate appointment. Relevant para of the decision is quoted herein below:- "11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought 19 "compassion", the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution ." 33. In Local Administration Department & An. v. M. Selvanayagam alias Kumarayelu, (2011) 13 SCC 42, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus:- “It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years 20 after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. 34. Recently, in case of Canara Bank vs Ajithkumar G.K., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290, Hon’ble Supreme Court has crystallized the guidelines for compassionate appointment placing reliance upon the several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as under:- q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution .” 35. In case of State of West Bengal vs Debabrata Tiwari and others, (2025) 5 SCC 712, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that having regard to object of granting compassionate appointment viz, to provide immediate succour to family of deceased employee due to death of breadwinner of family, grant of compassionate appointment after crisis is over would be of no avail. 21 36. From the aforementioned discussions made, in particular the fact that on the date of death of deceased employee in both writ petitions, there was no policy existing in respondent Bank to grant of compassionate appointment to a dependent family member of deceased employee, such policy came into force by way of adoption to the directives of the Central Government on 11.02.2019 and by virtue of directives issues by higher officials of the respondent Bank on 14.09.2023, benefit of policy for grant of compassionate appointment has been made effective from five years prior to 11.2.2019; and further considering that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N.C. Santhos (supra) and Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Purendu Sinha (supra) have held that entitlement of dependent family member for compassionate appointment is to be considered on the date of consideration of application, this Court does not find present to be a fit case to allow writ petition and grant relief as claimed in writ petition. 37. 37. One more aspect of the case is that death of deceased employees in both writ petitions is of the year 2015 and 2016 respectively and for considerable period of time, respective family members of deceased employees have survived without any employment on compassionate ground, hence compassionate appointment in such circumstance would 22 apparently frustrate the object and purpose of granting compassionate appointment. 38. For the foregoing discussions and reasons, both the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/