1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 02.02.2026 Order passed on : 24.03.2026 WPS No. 3908 of 2023 1 - Durgesh Kumar Nayak S/o Late Deo Charan Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Jamchuwa, P.O., Tahsil And P.S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Angira Bai Wd/o Late Deo Charan Ram Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Jamchuwa, P.O., Tahsil And P.S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - D.E.O. Dt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secratory (Education) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. I. Lakra, Advocate For State : Mr. Hrishikesh Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)] C.A.V. Order 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 services of petitioner No.1 have been terminated from the post of Grade-III Helper/Assistant at Government Higher Secondary School, Bunderchuwa, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). By the same impugned order, the respondents have further directed recovery of the amounts paid to petitioner No.1, by effecting deductions from the family pension being disbursed to petitioner No.2, who is the widow of late Deo Charan Ram. The said order, according to the petitioners, is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore calls for interference by this Court seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant Writ Petition in the interest of Justice. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside Order dtd 22/03/2023 Annexure P/1 passed by Respondent No. 1 . 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass direction to the Respondents to re-appoint the Petitioner No. 1 on compassionate basis and granted the post of Grade III helper/Assistant at Govt. Higher Secondery School Bunderchuwa, Dt. Jashpur C.G. 10.4. Any other reliefs may be granted to the Petitioner as the Hon'ble Court may feel deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3 2. Facts of the case, as canvased are that, the petitioners belong to an economically weak background and are wholly dependent upon lawful means of subsistence for their survival. Late Deo Charan Ram, who was the sole breadwinner of the family, expired suddenly on 07.12.2021, leaving behind his dependents, namely his son Durgesh Kumar Nayak (Petitioner No.1) and his widow Angira Bai (Petitioner No.2). After the untimely demise of late Deo Charan Ram, the petitioners were left without any source of income and were put to extreme financial hardship, rendering it difficult for them to meet even their basic necessities of life. Considering the financial distress of the family, the petitioners applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Upon due consideration of their application, the competent authority appointed Petitioner No.1 on compassionate basis to the post of Grade-III Helper/Assistant at Government Higher Secondary School, Bunderchuwa, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, vide appointment order dated 04.04.2022. Petitioner No.1 duly joined his duties and discharged his responsibilities sincerely. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioners, the respondent authorities abruptly terminated the services of Petitioner No.1 vide order dated 22.03.2023, solely on the ground that his elder brother was already working as a sweeper at Government Higher Secondary School, Gamhariya, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. The elder brother of Petitioner No.1, namely Anil Kumar Nayak, had been appointed as a sweeper at Government Higher 4 Secondary School, Gamhariya, District Jashpur, vide order dated 30.01.2013. Since then, for more than ten years, he has been living separately with his wife and children as a nuclear family at Gamhariya, District Jashpur. He has completely abandoned the petitioners and has no concern or connection with their livelihood. He has never provided any financial assistance to the petitioners at any point of time. Due to the said separation and abandonment, the elder brother cannot be treated as a dependent of late Deo Charan Ram. For this reason, while applying for compassionate appointment, the petitioners did not disclose the employment of the elder brother, as he was neither residing with them nor supporting them financially. The petitioners, being the only actual dependents of the deceased employee, were facing acute financial hardship, and it was only on this ground that compassionate appointment was rightly granted to Petitioner No.1. The appointment order dated 04.04.2022 and the joining letter dated 06.04.2022 clearly establish that Petitioner No.1 was validly appointed on compassionate grounds after due verification by the respondent authorities. Further, the ration card of the petitioners and the certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jamchuwa, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, categorically demonstrate that the petitioners are residing separately and independently, whereas the elder brother is living with his own family at Gamhariya. These documents clearly establish that the elder brother has abandoned the 5 petitioners and does not provide any financial support to them. Despite the above factual position, the respondent authorities have illegally questioned the compassionate appointment of Petitioner No.1 on the erroneous assumption that the presence of an employed elder brother disentitles the petitioners from compassionate appointment. Such action has resulted in grave injustice to the son and widow of late Deo Charan Ram, who are the actual dependents and are struggling for survival. After the demise of his father, the entire responsibility of maintaining himself and his widowed mother has fallen upon Petitioner No.1. In the absence of any other financial support and in view of the rising cost of living, it has become extremely difficult for the petitioners to sustain themselves. The impugned termination, coupled with the proposed recovery, amounts to double punishment for the petitioners for the very same alleged ground, which is arbitrary and unjust. In addition to termination, the respondent Education Department has further passed an order dated 22.03.2023 directing recovery of the salary paid to Petitioner No.1 by effecting deductions from the family pension being paid to Petitioner No.2, the widow of late Deo Charan Ram. The said action is harsh, unreasonable, and likely to push the petitioners into penury, thereby defeating the very object of compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that late Deo Charan Ram, who was the sole earning member of the family, expired 6 suddenly on 07.12.2021, leaving behind his dependents, namely his son Durgesh Kumar Nayak (Petitioner No.1) and his widow Angira Bai (Petitioner No.2). Upon his untimely demise, the petitioners were left without any source of livelihood and were subjected to acute financial distress, rendering it extremely difficult for them to sustain themselves and meet their basic day- to-day necessities. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the said financial hardship and humanitarian considerations, the petitioners applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. After due scrutiny of the application and verification of records, the competent authority granted compassionate appointment to Petitioner No.1 on the post of Grade-III Helper/Assistant at Government Higher Secondary School, Bunderchuwa, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, vide appointment order dated 04.04.2022. The appointment was made strictly in accordance with the applicable policy governing compassionate appointments and was intended to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family. Learned counsel vehemently contends that the impugned termination order dated 22.03.2023 is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law, as the same has been passed solely on the ground that the elder brother of Petitioner No.1 is employed as a sweeper at Government Higher Secondary School, Gamhariya, District Jashpur. It is submitted that the said ground is misconceived, irrelevant, and contrary to the very object and spirit of compassionate appointment. It is further submitted 7 that the elder brother of Petitioner No.1 was appointed on the post of sweeper vide order dated 30.01.2013 and has, for more than a decade, been residing separately with his wife and children as a nuclear family at Gamhariya, District Jashpur. He has completely severed his ties with the petitioners and has neither contributed to their maintenance nor provided any financial assistance whatsoever. The elder brother has, therefore, ceased to be a dependent of late Deo Charan Ram in all practical and legal senses. Learned counsel submits that since the elder brother was neither residing with the petitioners nor financially supporting them, the petitioners did not disclose his employment while applying for compassionate appointment. The petitioners alone were the actual dependents of late Deo Charan Ram at the time of his demise and were facing extreme hardship. The compassionate appointment granted to Petitioner No.1 was thus justified, lawful, and based on the correct assessment of dependency. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of death of late Deo Charan Ram, neither Petitioner No.1 nor Petitioner No.2 was employed in any Government service, and they were the only dependents left behind. The appointment on compassionate grounds was made purely on humanitarian considerations, keeping in view the purpose of ensuring that the bereaved family is able to survive with dignity. The impugned termination defeats the very object of the compassionate appointment scheme and violates the petitioners’ right to live with 8 dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that Petitioner No.1 is the only person upon whom the responsibility of maintaining himself and his widowed mother has fallen. In the present economic conditions marked by rising prices and inflation, it is practically impossible for the petitioners to survive on the meager family pension being paid to Petitioner No.2. The petitioners are thus entitled to continuation and protection of the compassionate appointment granted to Petitioner No.1. Learned counsel strongly submits that the action of the respondent authorities in directing recovery of the salary paid to Petitioner No.1 from the family pension of Petitioner No.2 is extremely harsh, arbitrary, and illegal. The family pension is a meager amount meant for the subsistence of the widow, and any recovery therefrom would cause grave and irreparable hardship to the petitioners. The proposed recovery, coupled with termination, amounts to double punishment for the petitioners on the same alleged ground and is violative of the principles of equity and fairness. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that this Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 and direct the respondent authorities to reinstate/re-appoint Petitioner No.1 on the post of Grade-III Helper/Assistant at Government Higher Secondary School, Bunderchuwa, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, with all consequential benefits, so as to enable the petitioners to lead a life of dignity and subsistence. 9 4. Learned State counsel submits that the brief facts of the case reveal that Petitioner No.1 was granted appointment on the post of Grade-III Helper/Assistant at Government Higher Secondary School, Bunderchuwa, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), on compassionate grounds following the death in harness of his father, late Deo Charan Ram, on 17.12.2021. The compassionate appointment was granted subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under the applicable Government scheme and upon the declaration furnished by the petitioner regarding the financial status and employment of family members. Learned State counsel further submits that during departmental verification it came to the notice of the competent authority that the elder brother of the petitioner, namely Anil Kumar Nayak, was already serving in Government employment on the post of sweeper at Government Higher Secondary School, Gamhariya, District Jashpur. As per the provisions of the compassionate appointment scheme, the existence of another earning member in Government service disentitles the family from claiming the benefit of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that upon discovery of the aforesaid material fact, the office of the District Education Officer, District Jashpur, issued a show-cause notice dated 21.03.2023 to the petitioner calling upon him to explain the concealment of information relating to the employment of his elder brother. Despite being afforded adequate opportunity, the petitioner failed to furnish a satisfactory reply. Consequently, the 10 competent authority passed the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 in accordance with the rules and policy governing compassionate appointments. Learned State counsel contends that the petitioner has approached this Court without clean hands and has suppressed material facts relating to the employment of his elder brother at the time of seeking compassionate appointment. The concealment of such vital information vitiates the very basis of appointment, thereby justifying the termination order passed by the department. It is further submitted that the petitioner has taken a plea before this Court that his elder brother has been living separately and does not financially support the petitioners; however, no documentary evidence regarding any legal partition or separation of the joint family was ever submitted before the competent authority at the relevant time. Such a plea, raised for the first time before the Court, cannot be accepted at this belated stage. 5. Learned State counsel further submits that the ration card and the certificate issued by the Sarpanch relied upon by the petitioners are not conclusive proof of separation or financial independence, as the said documents are prepared on the basis of information furnished by the beneficiaries themselves and do not determine eligibility under the compassionate appointment scheme. The petitioner was duty-bound to disclose all relevant facts truthfully at the time of submitting his application and affidavit for compassionate appointment. It is further argued that the 11 impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with the State Government’s compassionate appointment policy. There is no violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was duly served with a show-cause notice and given an opportunity to respond. The contention of the petitioners that the action amounts to double jeopardy is misconceived and devoid of merit. Learned State counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 530/2022 decided on 23.11.2022, wherein it has been held that compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right and can only be granted strictly in terms of the applicable scheme. Clause 6(a) of the scheme clearly provides that if any member of the family is already in Government service, the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be extended to another dependent. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances, and legal position, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. The impugned order is legal, valid, and passed in accordance with the governing policy and applicable law. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays that the present writ petition, being devoid of merit and based on suppression of material facts, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders, and examined the record with due care. 7. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the legality 12 and validity of the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the services of Petitioner No.1 were terminated from the post of Grade-III Helper/Assistant at Government Higher Secondary School, Bunderchuwa, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). By the same order, the respondents have further directed recovery of the salary and allowances paid to Petitioner No.1, including recovery from the family pension being paid to Petitioner No.2, the widow of late Deo Charan Ram. 8. The facts are not in serious dispute that Petitioner No.1 was appointed on compassionate grounds vide order dated 04.04.2022 after the death in harness of his father, late Deo Charan Ram. It is also not disputed that the elder brother of Petitioner No.1, namely Anil Kumar Nayak, was already in Government service on the post of sweeper much prior to the grant of compassionate appointment. 9. From perusal of the record, pleadings, and rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the core issue which arises for consideration before this Court is twofold; firstly, whether the cancellation of compassionate appointment of Petitioner No.1 is legally sustainable; and whether the respondents were justified in directing recovery of the salary paid to Petitioner No.1, particularly from the family pension of Petitioner No.2. 13 10. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it is well settled that such appointment is not a matter of right but an exception carved out to mitigate immediate financial hardship of the family of a deceased employee. Compassionate appointment must strictly conform to the policy framed by the State Government and cannot be granted dehors the scheme. The compassionate appointment policy of the State Government specifically provides that where any member of the family of the deceased employee is already in Government service, the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be extended to another dependent. This condition is explicit and leaves no scope for liberal interpretation. This issue is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Court, including in Writ Appeal No. 530/2022 decided on 23.11.2022, has categorically held that in view of Clause 6(a) of the compassionate appointment scheme, if one of the family members is already in Government employment, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to another dependent and such appointment, if made, is liable to be cancelled. 11. Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the elder brother of Petitioner No.1 was admittedly holding a Government post at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the compassionate appointment granted to Petitioner No.1 was contrary to the policy of the State 14 Government. Consequently, the respondents were justified in cancelling the compassionate appointment, and no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the order of termination insofar as it relates to cancellation of appointment. Accordingly, this Court holds that the cancellation of compassionate appointment of Petitioner No.1 does not warrant any interference and the same is upheld. 12. However, a different consideration arises with regard to the direction for recovery of the amount paid to Petitioner No.1. From the record, it is evident that Petitioner No.1 had worked on the post of Grade-III Helper/Assistant for a period of about one year pursuant to a valid appointment order issued by the competent authority. During this period, he rendered service to the institution and discharged his duties. The service rendered by Petitioner No.1 during the said period cannot be termed as illegal or unauthorized. The appointment was made by the respondents themselves and was acted upon until its cancellation. Therefore, the salary and other emoluments paid to Petitioner No.1 were paid against actual services rendered. It is a settled principle of law that where an employee has worked on a post pursuant to an appointment order and has discharged duties, the salary paid for such service cannot ordinarily be recovered merely because the appointment is subsequently cancelled on account of policy violation, unless fraud or misrepresentation of a grave nature is 15 established. No such finding has been recorded in the present case warranting recovery. 13. Furthermore, this Court finds that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and oppressive manner by directing that the amount, if not paid by the petitioner, shall be recovered from the family pension payable to Petitioner No.2. Pensionary benefits are meant for the sustenance of a retired employee or, in the present case, the widow of the deceased employee. It is settled law that no recovery can be effected from pensionary benefits except in accordance with law, and that too under exceptional circumstances. Recovery from the family pension of the widow, who was not even the beneficiary of the appointment, is wholly unjustified, harsh, and violative of settled legal principles. Such action defeats the very purpose of family pension and cannot be sustained. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909 has held as under : “21. We firmly believe that any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employee's pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar1, this Court held that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short 16 period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. The relevant paras of the Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) are extracted hereinbelow : - “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and 17 circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” (emphasis supplied) 18 22. Similarly, this Court in ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, held as under :- “108. We may give an example from service jurisprudence, where a principle of equity is frequently invoked to give relief to an employee in somewhat similar circumstances. Where the pay or other emoluments due to an employee is determined and paid by the employer, and subsequently the employer finds, (usually on audit verification) that on account of wrong understanding of the applicable rules by the officers implementing the rules, excess payment is made, courts have recognised the need to give limited relief in regard to recovery of past excess payments, to reduce hardship to the innocent employees, who benefited from such wrong interpretation.” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)3, this Court held as under : - “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, 19 would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v.) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” (emphasis supplied) 24. Recently, this Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala4, held that the State cannot recover excess amount paid to the ex-employee after the delay of 10 years.” 20 15. In view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that while the cancellation of compassionate appointment of Petitioner No.1 is legal and valid, the direction for recovery of the salary paid to him, particularly from the family pension of Petitioner No.2, is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed holding that the order dated 22.03.2023 cancelling the compassionate appointment of Petitioner No.1 is upheld. The direction contained in the impugned order regarding recovery of the amount paid to Petitioner No.1 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are restrained from effecting any recovery of salary or other emoluments already paid to Petitioner No.1 and It is further directed that no recovery shall be made from the family pension payable to Petitioner No.2, the widow of late Deo Charan Ram. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 02.02.2026 24.03.2026 - 24.03.2026