1 2026:CGHC:22453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 626 of 2023 Reserved on 8.4.2026 Pronounced on 13.05.2026 Santosh Sinha S/o Late Shri Dakornath Sinha Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Aawaradabri, Police Station Bhimkhoj, Post- Khallari, Tehsil Bagbahara, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Chairman, Head Office, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Shanti Bhawan, Above Allahabad Bank, Sunder Nagar, Danganiya Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Bagbahara, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.05.15 16:39:16 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajsingh Deo, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 30.9.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Regional Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, whereby he was directed to complete his graduation by 1.4.2024 to qualify for compassionate appointment in the respondent-Bank. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned letter/order Dated: 30.09.2022, issued by the Regional Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Raipur (Annexure P/1). 10.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the sub- staff cadre. OR That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the clerical post after the completion of his graduation. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the 3 case of the petitioner for release of ex gratia payment as per their scheme governing the field, after the death of their employee. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition. 3. Succinctly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to consider his application for compassionate appointment due to death of his father in harness on 2.4.2019, who was working on the post of Office Attendant, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Bagbahara Branch, District Mahasamund (CG). It is contended that the respondent authorities’ failure to adjudicate upon the application for a prolonged period also constitutes inordinate delay. The father of the petitioner was the sole breadwinner of the family, survived by his widow, two daughters and a son i.e. the present petitioner. As the sisters of the present petitioner are married and residing in their respective matrimonial houses, the remaining dependents consist solely of the widow and the petitioner himself. On 24.5.2019, well within two months of his father’s demise, the petitioner with the consent of all legal heirs submitted an application for compassionate appointment before the respondent-Bank. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner had successfully completed his Higher Secondary Education 4 (Class XII). Upon the instruction of the respondent authorities, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format on 30.6.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner was called for consideration of his application on 15.9.2021. There were nine candidates in total seeking compassionate appointment, while eight of them were duly appointed, the petitioner was excluded and his case was not considered for appointment at that point of time. The petitioner was informed that since the post held by his father i.e. Office Attendant is no longer being created as a regular cadre post, his candidacy for the same could not be considered. The authorities further advised the petitioner to upgrade his educational qualifications to graduation to be considered for a Clerical post. A letter dated 22.7.2022 was also issued by the respondent authorities, whereby the petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground of non-existence of a sanctioned vacancy for the post of Office Attendant, the petitioner’s claim has been rejected. This communication highlights the respondents’ refusal to appoint the petitioner on the post of Office Attendant. Thereafter, on several occasions, the petitioner communicated and made requests to the Bank. However, when the petitioner was not granted compassionate appointment, he filed this petition. 4. Mr. Anadi Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Office Attendant and upon his death, the said post became vacant. Within two months, the petitioner submitted an application for 5 compassionate appointment in respect of the vacancy occasioned by his father’s death. The petitioner was called for consideration along with the other candidates for compassionate appointment. While eight other similarly situated persons were granted appointments, the petitioner’s request was arbitrarily denied on the ground that the post of Office Attendant is not available. He further submits that the petitioner did not insist on a specific cadre; he expressed his willingness to accept an appointment as a Peon or any other Class-IV post. However, the respondents acted in contravention of their own policy by denying the appointment. Under the applicable policy, applications for compassionate appointment have to be considered with sympathy and by applying relaxed standards. Furthermore, such appointments take precedence over the absorption of surplus staff or reglularisation of temporary employees. However, the respondents ignored the aforesaid fact and did not grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, leaving him to run from pillar to post in search of relief. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajsingh Deo, Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner could not be considered due to the non-availability of sanctioned vacancy for the post of Office Assistant, the position formerly held by the deceased- employee. He submits that existence of a clear vacancy is a condition precedent for grant of compassionate appointment and in the absence thereof, the respondents are hamstrung by 6 practical and administrative exigencies. In support of his submissions, learned counsel would place reliance on the judgments rendered in the matters of Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Dinesh Kumar reported in (1996) 4 SCC 560, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 394, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das and others reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 and Indian Bank Vs. K. Usha and another reported in (1998) 2 SCC 663, to submit that such compassionate appointment can only be granted to the legal heirs of the deceased employee, who died in harness, provided the vacancy exists for their absorption. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 7. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was working as Office Attendant when he died in harness on 2.4.2019. Shortly thereafter within two months i.e. on 24.5.2019, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment, which the respondent-Bank duly acknowledged. Pursuant to the directions of the concerned authorities, the petitioner submitted an appropriate application in the prescribed format. Ultimately, a recommendation for his appointment was made on 30.6.2021 by the concerned Branch Manager of Bagbahara Branch.. The petitioner was subsequently called for consideration for compassionate appointment along with eight other candidates. The eight other persons have been granted compassionate 7 appointment, however, the petitioner was excluded. At the time the petitioner submitted his application for compassionate appointment, within two months of his father’s death, a vacancy for the post of Office Attendant subsisted. As such, at that stage, the Bank could not claim that no vacancy exists. Having applied promptly within two months, the petitioner’s claim cannot be defeated by the Bank’s subsequent assertion of non-availability. 8. Furthermore, the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector Banks provides that such appointment shall be granted if a vacancy exists or if the candidate is otherwise found suitable under the criteria of the Scheme. It further provides that the applications of this nature must be considered with utmost sympathy, applying relaxed standards tailored to the factual circumstances of the case. Besides, the relevant Scheme specifically states that the compassionate appointments take precedence over absorption of surplus staff or regularization of temporary employees. Hence, the Bank cannot seek to evade its obligations by claiming that the post is not available. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the post held by him became vacant immediately, and the petitioner applied promptly thereafter, therefore, the ground for denial by the respondent-Bank is totally misconceived. 9. Additionally, though the case laws cited by the Bank are principally appreciable but they are clearly distinguishable from the present facts. Since the post held by the father of the petitioner became vacant immediately upon his death in harness 8 and the petitioner applied within two months, the Bank’s defence of non-availability of vacancy is untenable. It is further notable that out of the nine candidates called for interaction, eight were granted appointments. Here, the Bank has invoked the ‘no vacancy’ ground only in case of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that no vacancy has been available for the past three years. Moreover, a candidate seeking compassionate appointment to a Class IV post cannot be denied only on the ground of non-availability, particularly when the petitioner is not claiming a clerical or higher grade position. In numerous instances, the Bank continues to engage temporary workers, therefore, Bank cannot claim lack of vacancies to deny a compassionate appointment. Such a denial constitutes a deviation from the Bank’s own policy, which stipulates that applications for compassionate appointment must be considered sympathetically and take precedence over temporary appointments or regularization. 10.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 30.9.2022 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set-aside/quashed. The Respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner against any available Class-IV post within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay