1 2026:CGHC:6715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8681 of 2023 1 - R. Yomesh Soni S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Soni Aged About 21 Years R/o Baiga Para, Ward No.6, Near Dehati General Store, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Ministry, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District- Education Officer Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate For State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Govt. Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/02/2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to the respondents to issue order order of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground consequent to death of Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 That any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deem fit may kindly also be allowed.” 2. Facts of the case, in breif, is that the grievance of the petitioner arises out of the impugned order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the District Education Officer, Durg, whereby the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. In the said impugned order, the respondent authority has acknowledged the petitioner as a dependent of Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni, yet refused to grant compassionate appointment solely on the ground that the petitioner is the nephew of the deceased employee. It is the case of the petitioner that Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni had, during his lifetime, treated the petitioner as a member of his family and had consistently shown him as such in official records. The details of the family members as declared by Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni, wherein the petitioner has been included. This clearly establishes that the petitioner was recognized by the deceased employee as part of his family for all practical and official purposes. Further, Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni had nominated the petitioner under the Family Benefit Fund Rules, 1974, thereby acknowledging the petitioner as his dependent for the purposes of service-related benefits. In addition thereto, the deceased employee had also nominated the petitioner as his nominee in his accounts maintained with the State Bank of India, which further demonstrate the financial dependence and close familial relationship between the petitioner and the deceased. It is 3 also averred that during the lifetime of Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni, the petitioner was taking care of his medical treatment and well-being. One such supporting document, namely the OPD slip issued by the Central India Institute dated 07.08.2021, evidencing the petitioner’s involvement in the medical care of the deceased, This fact substantiates the petitioner’s claim that he was dependent upon and was looking after the deceased employee prior to his death. The petitioner further submits that he possesses the requisite educational qualification for appointment under the respondents. The petitioner has passed B.Sc. Part-III in First Division and is, therefore, eligible for appointment on the post of UDT in a school under the respondent department. Lastly, it is not in dispute that Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni expired on 15.12.2021. The petitioner, being a dependent and nominee of the deceased employee and otherwise eligible, has thus approached this Court challenging the arbitrary rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is contended that the respondents have failed to appreciate the real object and purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate financial assistance and relief to the family of a deceased employee who has died in 4 harness, leaving the dependents in a state of penury and hardship. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was wholly dependent upon Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni, who had, during his lifetime, treated the petitioner as a member of his family and had duly nominated him under the Family Benefit Fund Rules, 1974, as well as in his bank accounts. The deceased employee had also shown the petitioner as a family member in his service records. Despite acknowledging the petitioner as a dependent, the respondents have rejected the claim solely on the technical ground that the petitioner is the nephew of the deceased, which is unsustainable in law when dependency is clearly established on record. It is further submitted that the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3794 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that for the purpose of compassionate appointment, the crucial factor is dependency on the deceased employee and not merely the rigid nomenclature of relationship. The said judgment is binding on the respondents, and therefore, the respondent authorities are under a legal obligation to consider the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the ground of dependency. Non-consideration of the petitioner’s claim in light of the said binding precedent renders the impugned order illegal and unsustainable. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner is duly qualified for appointment under the respondent 5 department, as he has passed B.Sc. Part-III in First Division. Despite possessing the requisite educational qualification, the petitioner is presently unemployed and is facing acute financial hardship. After the sudden demise of the sole bread earner of the family, the petitioner and the family members have been pushed into a state of financial distress and are facing starvation. In such circumstances, compassionate appointment is not a matter of charity but a measure of social justice intended to mitigate immediate hardship, and the petitioner’s case squarely falls within the ambit of the compassionate appointment scheme. It is further argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that compassionate appointment must be provided immediately after the death of the bread earner in service, as the very object of the scheme would otherwise be defeated. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly mandates that if no supernumerary post is available, the authorities are required to create a post to ensure that the dependent family member is provided immediate relief. Therefore, the prolonged delay in considering and granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the binding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel would lastly submit that the respondents have adopted a hyper-technical approach by rejecting the petitioner’s claim without appreciating the spirit of the compassionate appointment scheme and the binding judicial precedents governing the field. The impugned 6 order dated 04.03.2022 deserves to be quashed, and the respondents be directed to consider and grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping in view his dependency, qualification, and the acute financial distress faced by the family due to the sudden death of Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 04.03.2022 whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected strictly in accordance with the prevailing State Government guidelines. It is contended that as per the policy governing compassionate appointment, the definition of “dependent family members” does not include a nephew, and therefore, the petitioner does not fall within the eligible category. The relevant extract of the guidelines issued in the year 2013, clearly defining the scope of eligible family members, has been placed on record as Annexure R/1. Learned State counsel would further submit that it is a settled position of law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal mode of recruitment and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Such appointments are intended only to meet the immediate financial crisis faced by the family of a deceased employee and are permissible only when there exists a policy enabling such appointment. In the absence of eligibility under the governing policy, no direction can be issued to grant compassionate 7 appointment. It is further submitted that the very object of compassionate appointment is to provide relief to the “family” of the deceased employee, exhaustively defines the family to include only widow/widower, son or adopted son, unmarried daughter or unmarried adopted daughter, dependent widowed or divorced daughter, and daughter-in-law. The said definition leaves no discretion with the authorities to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to any other relative beyond those expressly mentioned. In view of the above, learned State counsel submits that since the petitioner is admittedly the nephew of the deceased employee Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni, Assistant Grade-II, Government Higher Secondary School, Tilak Kanya, Durg, he is not entitled to compassionate appointment under the existing policy. The impugned order dated 04.03.2022 has been passed in strict conformity with the guidelines and settled principles of law and, therefore, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has carefully perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. 6. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the District Education Officer, Durg, whereby the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner is the nephew of the deceased employee and does not fall within the 8 definition of “dependent family member” under the applicable State Government policy. 7. From the record, it is not in dispute that Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni died in harness on 15.12.2021. It is also evident that during his lifetime, the deceased employee had shown the petitioner as a family member in his records, had nominated him under the Family Benefit Fund Rules, 1974, and had also nominated him as nominee in his bank accounts. The material placed on record further indicates that the petitioner was taking care of the deceased employee during his illness and was dependent upon him. However, the impugned order has rejected the petitioner’s claim solely on the ground that he is a nephew, which relationship, as such, is not included within the definition of “family” under the compassionate appointment guidelines of the State Government. 8. This Court is conscious of the settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is an exception to the normal rule of recruitment. Such appointment can only be granted strictly in accordance with the policy in force. At the same time, it is also well settled that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee who has died in harness, leaving the dependents in financial distress. The policy framed by the State Government clearly includes an adopted son within the definition of eligible family members. In the present case, though the petitioner has produced various documents to demonstrate 9 dependency and close familial association with the deceased employee, there is no categorical document on record, as of now, conclusively establishing that the petitioner was the legally adopted son of Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni in accordance with law. In absence of such proof, this Court finds it difficult to straightaway direct the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner by overlooking the express provisions of the policy. 9. Be that as it may, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in order to do complete justice, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves one last opportunity. If the petitioner is in a position to produce documentary evidence relating to adoption, or any legally admissible proof to show that he was adopted by Late Shri Suresh Kumar Soni and thus falls within the category of “adopted son” as recognized under the compassionate appointment policy, the same ought to be examined by the competent authority. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted a last opportunity to produce documents/evidence of adoption before the concerned respondent authorities within a reasonable period. In case the petitioner succeeds in establishing, by cogent and lawful evidence, that he is the adopted son of the deceased employee, the respondent department shall consider his case for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the 10 applicable policy and law and shall pass appropriate orders thereon within a stipulated time. 11. With the aforesaid limited directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE