1 CGHC010164292026 2026:CGHC:28078-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 500 of 2026 Smt. Kalpana Ramteke D/o Late Shri Bharat Singh Rangari Aged About 31 Years W/o Shri Bhuvan Ramteke Caste Mahar (Sc) R/o 10, Village Damabanjari Post Kallu Banjari Tahsil Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of School Education Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director Public Education Directorate Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector Balod District Balod C.G. 4 - District Education Officer District Balod C.G. 5 - Block Education Officer, Block Daundi Lohara District Balod C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge JUDGMENT ON BOARD Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08 .0 7 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he has already cured the defect pointed out by the Registry. 3. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006), the appellant, who was petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5010 of 2021 (Smt. Kalpana Ramteke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition. The appeal is barred by 203 days of its limitation. 5. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the appellant’s father, Late Bharat Singh Rangari, who was posted as a Higher Division Teacher in Government Middle Ashram Shool, Kodekasa, Block Daundilohara, District, Balod, died in harness during his service period on 18.03.2018 and thereafter the appellant filed an application for compassionate appointment oon 01.05.2018 to respondent No.5, who forwarded the same to respondent No.4 for necessary action. The respondent No.4 vide order dated 24.08.2018 rejected the said application. The rejection was based on the ground that the deceased employee’s two sons, namely Kamlesh Kumar Rangari and Manoj Kumar Rangari, are already in Government Service and his wife is a semi-government employee. Being aggrieved by the same, the 3 appellant has preferred writ petition before this Court registered as WPS No. 2010 of 2021, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 04.08.2025. Hence, this appeal, which is barred by 203 days of its limitation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the true object and purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government employee facing financial hardship. It is submitted that although the deceased employee's two sons are in government service and his wife is employed in a semi-government establishment, the appellant and her unemployed husband were wholly dependent upon the income of the deceased employee at the time of his death. It is further submitted that the appellant has obtained the written consent/no- objection of all the other legal heirs in support of her claim for compassionate appointment and, therefore, there was no inter se dispute amongst the family members regarding her candidature. Learned counsel contends that the respondents rejected the appellant's application solely on the basis that certain family members were employed, without conducting any inquiry into the actual financial condition, dependency, or indigent circumstances of the appellant, thereby defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment scheme. It is argued that the authorities failed to consider the relevant facts and mechanically 4 rejected the appellant's claim, and the learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate these material aspects while dismissing the writ petition. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 04.08.2025, as well as the order dated 24.08.2018 rejecting the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment, deserve to be set aside and the respondents be directed to reconsider the appellant's claim in accordance with law. 7. Learned State counsel, while supporting the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order dated 24.08.2018 rejecting the appellant's application for compassionate appointment, submits that the rejection was strictly in accordance with the applicable policy governing compassionate appointments. It is contended that, on the date of consideration of the appellant's application, the deceased employee's two sons were already serving in Government service and his wife was employed in a semi-government establishment, which clearly indicated that the family was not left without a source of livelihood or in such indigent financial condition as to warrant compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that compassionate appointment is not a matter of vested or hereditary right, but only an exception to the general rule of recruitment, intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee in cases of acute financial distress. Since the competent authority, upon due consideration of the relevant facts and the applicable policy, found the appellant 5 ineligible for compassionate appointment, the application was rightly rejected. Learned State counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts and the settled principles governing compassionate appointment and has committed no error warranting interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant's father, who was serving as a Higher Division Teacher, died in harness on 18.03.2018. The appellant's application for compassionate appointment came to be rejected by the competent authority on the ground that two sons of the deceased employee were already in Government service and the wife of the deceased was employed in a semi- government establishment. The learned Single Judge, upon due consideration of the facts and the applicable policy, upheld the said rejection. 10. The law relating to compassionate appointment is well settled that such appointment is not a vested or hereditary right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. It is an exception to the normal mode of recruitment and is intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness, leaving the family in penurious circumstances. The claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered 6 strictly in accordance with the governing policy and the eligibility criteria prescribed therein. 11. In the present case, the competent authority has recorded that two sons of the deceased employee were already in Government service and the widow of the deceased was also employed in a semi-government establishment. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision of the competent authority suffers from arbitrariness, perversity or violation of the applicable policy. Merely because the appellant claims that she and her unemployed husband were dependent upon the deceased employee or that she has obtained consent from the other family members would not, by itself, confer an enforceable right to compassionate appointment, particularly when the competent authority has found that the family was not in such indigent circumstances as contemplated under the scheme, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority. No ground has been made out warranting interference with the impugned order in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra