1 CGHC010262122026 2026:CGHC:37265-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 781 of 2026 Shrikant Pathak S/o Late Ramnihora Pathak Aged About 30 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat , Pandatarai District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Agriculture Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, Beej Bhawan , G.E. Road, Telibanda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Beej Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibanda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate For Respondent No.1/ State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Adv. General For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge JUDGMENT ON BOARD Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20 .0 8 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Vedant Shadangi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 appearing for the State/ respondent No.1 and Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 & 3. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the present appeal is barred by a delay of 56 days. Though the matter is listed for orders on the question of default, the appellant has not filed any separate application seeking condonation of the said delay. 3. Ordinarily, an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation cannot be entertained unless the delay is satisfactorily explained and is condoned in accordance with law. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to advance substantial justice, this Court is of the view that the delay of 56 days deserves to be condoned. 4. The delay is neither inordinate nor excessive, and refusal to condone the same at the threshold may result in denial of an opportunity to the appellant to have the matter considered on merits. It is well settled that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal and justice-oriented construction, particularly where no deliberate or mala fide conduct is attributable to the party seeking condonation. 5. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The default pointed out by the Registry stands cured. 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3 7. By way of present writ appeal filed under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the appellant / writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Singe Judge in WPS No. 2402/2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the appellant’s father, late Shri Ramnihora Pathak, was serving as Sub-Inspector in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) and died in a tragic accident on 28.08.2020 while in service. The appellant, being eligible and qualified (B.E. in Electrical Engineering), applied for compassionate appointment, supported by affidavits executed by his mother Smt. Usha Pathak and his brothers, namely Chandrakant Pathak and Suryakant Pathak, consenting to the grant of such appointment in favour of the appellant. The said application was rejected by the Additional Director, State Agriculture Marketing Board, Raipur (C.G.) vide order dated 02.12.2020 on the ground that the appellant’s siblings are already employed in Government service. Challenging the said order, the appellant has preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No. 2402 of 2021, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25.03.2026. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the 4 learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition without properly appreciating the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the mere fact that the appellant's brothers are employed in Government service cannot, by itself, disentitle the appellant from consideration for compassionate appointment, particularly when the brothers are living separately with their respective families and are maintaining separate households. Learned counsel submits that the separate residence of the appellant's brothers is duly substantiated by the existence of separate ration cards, which clearly demonstrates that they are not members of the appellant's household and are not dependent upon or maintaining the appellant's widowed mother. Learned counsel further submits that after the death of the appellant's father, the appellant alone is maintaining his widowed mother, and the financial and familial circumstances of the appellant's household ought to have been considered independently. The employment of his brothers, who are residing separately with their respective families, cannot reasonably be treated as a source of financial support available to the appellant's mother or the family of the deceased employee. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel, opposing the appeal, submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the applicable scheme governing compassionate appointment. It is submitted that compassionate appointment is 5 not a matter of right and can be granted only in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed under the applicable rules/scheme. Learned State counsel further submits that the claim of the appellant was duly considered by the competent authority and was rejected vide order dated 02.12.2020 on the ground that the deceased employee is survived by other family members who are already employed in Government service. Thus, the competent authority was justified in concluding that the family of the deceased employee was not in such financial distress as would warrant appointment of another family member on compassionate grounds. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the material available on record. 12. The undisputed facts are that the appellant's father, late Shri Ramnihora Pathak, died in harness on 28.08.2020. The appellant thereafter sought appointment on compassionate grounds. His claim was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 02.12.2020 on the ground that his brothers were already employed in Government service. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the matter, declined to interfere with the said order. 13. The principal submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that merely because the appellant's brothers are employed in 6 Government service, his claim could not have been rejected, particularly when they are residing separately with their respective families and have separate ration cards and the appellant alone is maintaining his widowed mother. We are unable to accept the submission in the manner advanced. 14. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment to public employment and is intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of an employee who dies in harness, leaving the family in financial distress. It is not a vested or hereditary right of a dependent of the deceased employee. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, has categorically held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle a family member to appointment; the competent authority is required to examine the financial condition of the family and the entitlement has to be determined in accordance with the applicable scheme. 16. Similarly, in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583, the Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the claim has to be considered strictly in accordance with the scheme 7 governing such appointment. 17. In the present case, the competent authority, while considering the appellant's claim, found that the appellant's brothers were already employed in Government service. Thus, the authority took into consideration the relevant circumstance regarding the availability of earning members in the family. The mere fact that the brothers are residing separately and have separate ration cards does not, by itself, create an enforceable right in favour of the appellant for compassionate appointment. 18. It is true that the appellant asserts that he alone is maintaining his widowed mother. However, such assertion, even if taken into consideration, cannot override the specific conditions of the applicable compassionate appointment scheme. The affidavits furnished by the mother and brothers expressing consent in favour of the appellant may demonstrate the family's preference for the appellant's appointment, but such consent cannot confer a right to compassionate appointment contrary to the governing rules or policy. 19. The Supreme Court has also consistently held that compassionate appointment is traceable only to the applicable scheme and cannot be directed dehors the scheme. In State of Karnataka v. C. N. Chandrashekar, (2006) 3 SCC 208, and State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661, it has been reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a source 8 of regular recruitment and that the claim must satisfy the requirements of the applicable scheme. The Supreme Court has emphasised that the purpose is to provide immediate succour to a family in distress and not to provide employment to a family member merely because the employee died in harness. 20. Further, in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2023) 5 SCC 130, the Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is intended to meet the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner and that there is no vested right to such appointment. The financial condition and other relevant circumstances of the family have to be examined in accordance with the applicable scheme. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., 2025, also reiterates the settled principles that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and that its purpose is to provide immediate assistance to a family facing financial crisis; the claim has to be examined in the light of the applicable scheme and the actual financial circumstances of the family. 21. In the facts of the present case, the appellant has not demonstrated that the competent authority acted contrary to the applicable scheme or that the order dated 02.12.2020 suffers from perversity, arbitrariness or violation of any statutory provision. The existence of separate ration cards or separate residence of the appellant's brothers, by itself, cannot be treated as determinative of the appellant's entitlement. Whether the family was actually in 9 indigent circumstances so as to warrant compassionate appointment was a matter for consideration by the competent authority under the applicable policy. 22. We are also conscious of the fact that the appellant possesses the requisite educational qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. However, eligibility and qualification by themselves do not confer a right to compassionate appointment. The essential consideration is whether the claim satisfies the conditions of the applicable compassionate appointment scheme and whether the family requires such exceptional relief. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present intra-court appeal. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to establish any illegality, perversity or arbitrariness either in the order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the competent authority or in the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2402 of 2021. 24. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra