1 CGHC010251112026 2026:CGHC:35492-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 687 of 2026 1 - Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman Through Its Chairman Head Office Sunder Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur (P O And P.S. District Raipur C.G. Pin Code 492001 Current Address- Sector 24, Plot No. 47, Village Tuta, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. Pin Code 492001. Appellant Bank's Name Altered From Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Vide Gazette Notification Dated 24.10.202 5. Published By The Gol. 2 - Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Regional Manager Regional Office Shanti Bhawan Above Allahabad Bank Sunder Nagar Chowk Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Branch Baghbahara District Mahasamund C.G. ... Appellants versus Santosh Sinha S/o Late Dakoranath Sinha Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Aawaradabri Police Station Bhimkhoj, Post Khailari, Tehsil Baghbahara, District Mahasamund C.G. --- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.13 14:43:10 +0530 2 12/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Anadi Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This writ appeal, under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, is directed against the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 626 of 2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed, the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Regional Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, was set aside and the appellants were directed to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent against any available Class-IV post within 90 days. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the father of the respondent, Late Dakornath Sinha, was working as an Office Attendant in the appellant- Bank and died in harness on 02.04.2019. The respondent submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 24.05.2019, within two months of his father's death, and thereafter submitted the application in the prescribed format on 30.06.2021. He was subsequently called for consideration along with eight other candidates seeking compassionate appointment. While the other eight candidates were granted appointment, the respondent was not considered on the ground that the post of Office Attendant was no longer being created as a regular cadre post. Thereafter, vide communication dated 22.07.2022, the respondent's claim was rejected on the ground of non- existence of a sanctioned vacancy for the post of Office Attendant. 3 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the respondent preferred W.P.(S) No. 626 of 2023 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 13.05.2026, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 30.09.2022, holding, inter alia, that at the time when the respondent submitted his application, a vacancy on the post of Office Attendant subsisted and, having applied promptly within two months of his father's death, his claim could not be defeated by the subsequent assertion of non-availability of vacancy. The learned Single Judge further noticed that out of nine candidates called for consideration, eight had been granted compassionate appointment and, accordingly, directed the appellants to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent against any available Class-IV post within 90 days. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in directing compassionate appointment to the respondent despite the admitted position that there was no sanctioned vacancy available on the post of Office Attendant. It is submitted that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and can be granted only in accordance with the applicable scheme and against an available vacancy. The death of an employee does not, by itself, confer any vested or hereditary right upon his dependent to seek appointment against the post held by the deceased employee, nor does it oblige the employer to create a vacancy for such appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the appellant-Bank had already adopted the recommendations of the Mitra Committee, pursuant to which non-core activities, including sweeping, 4 cleaning, housekeeping and other ancillary services, were permitted to be outsourced and, consequently, fresh regular recruitment to the post of Office Attendant was no longer being undertaken. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this administrative policy and erroneously proceeded on the premise that the post held by the deceased employee automatically became available for compassionate appointment upon his death. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, (1996) 4 SCC 560; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560; and Indian Bank v. K. Usha, (1998) 2 SCC 663, to contend that compassionate appointment can be made only against an available vacancy and that no mandamus can be issued directing creation of a vacancy. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submit that the respondent had applied for compassionate appointment within two months of the death of his father, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. It is submitted that at the relevant time a vacancy on the post of Office Attendant was available and the respondent's application was duly considered along with other similarly situated candidates. However, while eight out of the nine candidates were granted compassionate appointment, the respondent alone was denied appointment on the subsequent plea that the post of Office Attendant was no longer available. Learned counsel would submit that such subsequent change in the stand of the Bank cannot defeat the 5 respondent's legitimate claim, particularly when his application had been made promptly and was pending consideration. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent was willing to accept appointment against any Class-IV post and was not insisting upon appointment to the specific post of Office Attendant. It is contended that the applicable scheme requires compassionate appointment cases to be considered sympathetically and with relaxed standards, and such appointments are to take precedence over absorption of surplus staff or regularisation of temporary employees. The learned Single Judge, having found that the respondent's claim was arbitrarily denied despite the appointment of eight similarly situated candidates, rightly directed the appellants to consider him for appointment against any available Class-IV post. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order calls for no interference and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also gone through the documents annexed with the present writ appeal as well as writ petition with utmost circumspection. 10. The undisputed position is that the respondent's father died in harness on 02.04.2019 while serving as an Office Attendant in the appellant- Bank and the respondent submitted his application for compassionate appointment within two months of his father's death. Thereafter, he submitted the application in the prescribed format and was called for consideration along with eight other candidates. It is also not in dispute that the other eight candidates were granted compassionate 6 appointment, whereas the respondent alone was denied appointment on the ground of non-availability of vacancy. 11. The main contention of the appellants is that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and can be granted only against an available sanctioned vacancy. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid settled proposition. However, in the facts of the present case, the question is not merely whether compassionate appointment can be claimed as a matter of right, but whether the appellants were justified in denying consideration to the respondent on the ground of non-availability of vacancy, despite his having applied promptly and despite the fact that he was considered along with other similarly situated candidates. 12. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the material available on record, has recorded a categorical finding that when the respondent submitted his application for compassionate appointment within two months of his father's death, a vacancy on the post of Office Attendant subsisted. It has further been noticed that the respondent was subsequently called for consideration along with eight other candidates and all the other eight candidates were granted compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge also found that there was nothing on record to establish that no vacancy had been available for the preceding three years and that the Bank had continued to engage temporary workers. 13. In our considered view, the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based upon the material available on record and do not suffer from any perversity or error of law warranting interference in 7 intra-Court appeal. The respondent had approached the Bank promptly after the death of his father. His application was not rejected at the initial stage for want of eligibility; rather, he was called for consideration along with other candidates. In such circumstances, the subsequent stand of the Bank that the post of Office Attendant was no longer available cannot, by itself, defeat the respondent's claim, particularly when the Bank has failed to demonstrate from the record that no vacancy was available and, at the same time, eight similarly situated candidates were granted compassionate appointment. 14. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellants upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the requirement of availability of vacancy is not of much assistance to the appellants in the facts of the present case. The learned Single Judge has not directed appointment dehors the applicable scheme or directed creation of a vacancy. Rather, having found that the respondent's claim was duly made within a reasonable period, that a vacancy subsisted at the relevant stage and that the Bank had granted appointment to the other candidates called for consideration, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to grant compassionate appointment against any available Class-IV post. The said direction, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be contrary to the settled principles governing compassionate appointment. 15. We also find substance in the observation of the learned Single Judge that the compassionate appointment scheme requires such applications to be considered with utmost sympathy and, in the present case, the respondent could not have been singled out for 8 denial on the ground subsequently taken by the Bank, particularly when eight out of nine candidates called for consideration were granted appointment. The appellants have not been able to demonstrate any material error in the factual findings recorded by the learned Single Judge or any legal infirmity in the direction issued by him. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.626 of 2023 does not call for any interference. The present writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent against any available Class-IV post within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order is affirmed. 17. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved