1 2026:CGHC:6704-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 115 of 2026 1 - Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank (Name Altered From Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank To Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Vide Gazette Notification Dated 24-10-2025 Published By The G.O.I.) Through Its President, Head Office, 15, Recreation Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Current Address- Sector 24, Plot No. 47, Village Tuta, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - General Manager (Administrative) Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G. 3 - Regional Manager, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Regional Office- Rajnandgaon, G.E. Road, Near Mundrakunj, Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon C.G. ... appellant (s) versus 1 - Sunil Kumar Meshram S/o. Late Prabhu Das Meshram, Aged About 36 Years R/o. Behind Mundra Kunj, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Respondent(s) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.07 11:09:49 +0530 2 For appellant (s) : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are the respondents in WPS No. 6580/2023, against the order dated 04/12/2025 passed by learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 6580/2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein), has been allowed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent's father, Late Prabhudas Meshram, who was serving as an Office Attendant under the appellants, died in harness on 25.02.2020 and immediately after completing the essential ceremonies, the respondent 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 appellants internally scrutinized the claim vide letter dated 17.03.2021 and the respondent's family thereafter suffered extreme financial distress, and the respondent's mother, 3 Smt. Sushila Meshram, also passed away due to cancer for want of proper treatment. Despite the grave hardship, the appellants rejected the respondent'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 respondent on 30.07.2022. Although the respondent orally represented for appointment against any other available vacant post, no action has been taken by the authorities and thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed by the respondent (petitioner therein) claiming the following reliefs in the writ petition:- "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 4. After hearing the parties and material available on record, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner- Sunil Kumar Meshram (respondent herein). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the impugned judgment and order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench is ex facie arbitrary, irrational and contrary to settled principles of law, inasmuch as it directs the appellants to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent on a suitable post or, in the alternative, to provide contractual appointment for two years followed by regularization, despite undisputed non- availability of vacancy. The direction to create or adjust a post or to regularise the respondent by judicial fiat directly contravenes the law laid down in Indian Bank v. K. Usha, wherein it has been categorically held that courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus to create vacancies where none exist. It is further submitted that compassionate appointment is merely a welfare measure intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee and cannot supplant the regular mode of recruitment, particularly in absence of vacancy, as such an approach would result in misuse of public funds and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order travels beyond the permissible limits of judicial review, ignores binding precedents, and is liable to be set aside, and the writ appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned State counsel has opposes the submission made by 5 learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the leaned Single Bench of this Court has rightly allowed the WP(S) No. 6580/2023, as the Court has exercised its writ jurisdiction to ensure that the very object of compassionate appointment namely to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee who died in harness is not defeated by a rigid and mechanical application of rules. The learned Single Bench, after considering the facts of the case, found that the respondent had fulfilled all eligibility criteria and that the rejection of his claim solely on the ground of non-availability of vacancy was arbitrary and unreasonable, the directions issued do not amount to creation of a permanent post by judicial fiat but are equitable in nature, intended to balance administrative constraints with humanitarian considerations; the settled law relied upon by the appellants does not prohibit the Court from issuing appropriate directions in exceptional circumstances to mitigate hardship, and therefore the impugned order neither violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution nor results in misuse of public funds. Hence, no interference is warranted in appeal and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents submitted by the parties as well as the order passed by Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in the WPS No. 6580/2023. 8. The Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court, after considering the fact 6 of the present case, that the petitioner’s father, the sole bread- winner of the family, died in harness on 25.02.2020 and that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment within the prescribed time and fulfills the eligibility conditions. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim solely on the ground of non-availability of an immediate vacancy, without any adverse material against him and without considering alternative permissible measures, defeats the humanitarian object of the compassionate appointment scheme, which is intended to mitigate sudden financial distress. The authorities failed to apply their mind to the purpose of the policy or to explore other feasible options consistent with law, rendering the rejection arbitrary and unsustainable. The learned Single Judge has further considered the following conditions, necessary to protect legitimate administrative concerns and ensure compliance with the relevant rules: "(a) The appointment shall be made only if the petitioner satisfies the essential eligibility criteria prescribed under the applicable compassionate (educational/age/other prescribed criteria). Rules appointment (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. 7 (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. 9. Thus, considering the submissions made by the parties and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika