CGHC010273252026 2026:CGHC:36485-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 730 of 2026 Jagriti Patel D/o Late Narayan Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 25, House No. 136, Near Gaura, Chaura, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchaayt, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri SS Baghel, GA For Respondent-2 : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.08.2026 Heard Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants Also heard Shri SS Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for respondent-2. 1. Present Writ Appeal is filed with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that, the Ho’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set-aside the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in WPS Wa 730 of 2026 2 No.7781/2022 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and grant compensate appointment to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. ” 2. Present intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.7781 of 2022 (Jagriti Patel V. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by respondent No.2, rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that her sister, namely, Reetu Patel, is already in government service, has been dismissed. Along with the appeal, I.A. No.01/2026 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. It is submitted that the appellant belongs to an economically weaker family and, after the death of her father, has been facing financial hardship. It is further submitted that the appellant required time to arrange the necessary expenses for obtaining the certified copy of the order and for taking appropriate legal steps for filing the appeal. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 4. Having considered the explanation furnished by the appellant for the delay and being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown, I.A. No.01/2026 is allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the daughter of late Narayan Patel, who died while in service. After the death of her father, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment on the ground that the family was facing financial hardship and that she was required to support herself and her widowed mother. Her application was rejected by order dated 23.06.2022 on the ground that her sister, namely, Reetu Patel, is working as a government teacher at Higher Secondary Wa 730 of 2026 3 School, Gidhpuri, Janpad Panchayat Palari, District Baloda Bazaar. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred W.P.(S) No.7781 of 2022 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 10.04.2026, dismissed the writ petition holding that in view of Clause 6A of the compassionate appointment policy dated 29.08.2016, if any member of the family of the deceased government servant is already in government service, another member of the family is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Bai, W.A. No.33 of 2022, decided on 18.02.2022. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in mechanically applying Clause 6A of the policy and in relying upon the judgment in Muniya Bai (supra) without appreciating the peculiar facts of the present case. It is submitted that the appellant's sister, Reetu Patel, is a married woman, residing separately in her matrimonial home and having an independent household and, therefore, her government employment cannot be treated as a source of financial support for the appellant and her widowed mother. It is further submitted that the appellant has placed on record the marriage certificate of her sister and that there is no material to establish that the sister is extending any financial assistance to the appellant's family. Learned counsel further submits that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee facing financial distress and that the policy should not be interpreted in a manner which defeats the very object of the scheme. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Holding Company Limited v. Chandrani Sinha, W.A. No.525 of 2016, Yageshwar Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.(S) No.3384 of 2021, and Sulochana Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.(S) No.2728 of 2017. It is, Wa 730 of 2026 4 therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be granted compassionate appointment. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would jointly submit that the appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition after considering the applicable policy and the binding Division Bench judgment in Muniya Bai, (supra). It is submitted that Clause 6A of the policy clearly provides that where any member of the family of the deceased married government servant is already in government service, another member of the family is not eligible for compassionate appointment. It is contended that the policy does not contemplate any enquiry as to whether the government-employed family member is actually providing financial assistance to the other members of the family. Therefore, the contention that the appellant's sister is residing separately or is not financially supporting the appellant or her mother cannot override the express terms of the policy. Learned State counsel further submits that compassionate appointment is not a vested or fundamental right and can be claimed only in accordance with the applicable scheme. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Coming to the merits of the appeal, the undisputed fact is that claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment is governed by the policy dated 29.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. Clause 6A of the said policy provides that in the family of a deceased married government servant, if any other member of the family is already in government service, then another member of the family shall not be eligible for compassionate appointment. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant can claim Wa 730 of 2026 5 compassionate appointment notwithstanding the fact that her sister, who falls within the category of family members contemplated by the policy, is admittedly in government service. 10. The law relating to compassionate appointment is by now well settled. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the object of compassionate appointment in the following terms: “2….The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.” 11. In State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in public employment and is permissible only within the parameters of the scheme governing such appointment. 12. Recently, in the matter of N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and that the claim has to be considered in accordance with the applicable scheme. The Court has consistently held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of recruitment and cannot be claimed dehors the conditions prescribed by the governing scheme. 13. Thus, while the object of compassionate appointment is undoubtedly to provide succour to a family facing financial crisis, the right to such appointment does not arise merely from the death of a government servant. The claimant must satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable policy. The Court, exercising Wa 730 of 2026 6 judicial review, cannot substitute its own conditions for those prescribed by the competent authority under the scheme. 14. In the present case, Clause 6A of the policy is categorical. It provides that if any other member of the family of the deceased government servant is already in government service, another member of the family would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. The Division Bench of this Court, while considering the very same Clause 6A in Muniya Bai, (supra) has held that the policy does not contemplate an enquiry into the financial condition of the government-employed family member or whether such member is actually providing financial assistance to the other members of the family. Subsequent decisions of this Court have consistently followed the said principle. 15. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant upon the fact that Reetu Patel is married and residing separately, therefore, cannot assist the appellant. The relevant consideration is not whether the said family member is in fact contributing financially to the appellant's household, but whether she falls within the category of family members contemplated by the applicable policy and is already in government service. The policy, as interpreted by the Division Bench in Muniya Bai (supra), does not make the operation of Clause 6A dependent upon proof of actual financial contribution by the government-employed family member. 16. The judgments relied upon by the appellant, including Chandrani Sinha, and Yageshwar Kumar Sahu and Sulochana Netam, (supra) do not persuade us to take a different view in the facts of the present case. In particular, the question arising in the present appeal has to be examined in light of the subsequent authoritative interpretation of Clause 6A by the Division Bench in Muniya Bai (supra). The judgment in Yageshwar Kumar Sahu, relied upon by the appellant, was rendered in a factual and legal setting where the applicability and operation of the policy clause Wa 730 of 2026 7 was considered differently; it cannot be read as authorising the Court to disregard an express condition of the subsequently applicable policy in the face of the binding interpretation placed upon Clause 6A by the Division Bench. 17. The contention that the appellant and her widowed mother are facing financial hardship, though sympathetic, also cannot furnish a ground for directing compassionate appointment contrary to the governing policy. Compassionate appointment is a concession intended to meet the requirements of a particular scheme; it cannot be converted into an alternative mode of recruitment. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729, the claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered within the framework of the scheme and the terms thereof cannot be ignored on equitable considerations. 18. We are also unable to accept the submission that denial of compassionate appointment in the present case amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Compassionate appointment itself is a policy-based exception to the constitutional requirement of equality in public employment. As the appellant has no vested or indefeasible right to appointment on compassionate grounds dehors the policy, refusal of such appointment in accordance with the applicable eligibility condition cannot, merely on that account, be treated as infringement of Article 21. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no error in the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.7781 of 2022. The learned Single Judge has rightly applied Clause 6A of the applicable policy and has rightly followed the binding decision of the Division Bench in Muniya Bai, (supra). 20. Consequently, while condoning the delay in filing the present appeal, the writ appeal fails on merits and is accordingly dismissed. Wa 730 of 2026 8 21. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.7781 of 2022 is hereby affirmed. 22. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.08.19 18:04:10 +0530