Kin’s govt job no ground to deny relief after employee’s death: HC

The Chhattisgarh high court observed that a claim for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected merely because another member of the deceased employee’s family is in government service. The court held that authorities must assess the family’s actual financial condition and hardship, emphasizing that the humanitarian object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial succour to the family of an employee who dies in harness and to help it overcome the sudden crisis caused by the loss of its breadwinner.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed a writ appeal filed by the commissioner, Ambikapur Municipal Corporation, challenging a February 2026 order that had directed compassionate appointment to Mukund Hela, whose father died in service as a sanitary worker in 2017.

The municipal corporation had rejected Hela’s claim in 2018 on the ground that his mother was already employed as a Safai Karmachari under the corporation, making the family ineligible under the state’s compassionate appointment policy.

Rejecting the corporation’s challenge, the Division Bench observed that while compassionate appointment is not a vested right or an alternative mode of public recruitment, the scheme is intended to provide immediate relief to families facing financial distress after the death of an employee in harness.

“The authorities, while considering such claim, are required to adopt a pragmatic and purposive approach keeping in view the financial condition of the family and the surrounding circumstances instead of rejecting the claim on mere technicalities,” the court said.

The Bench noted that the family had lost its principal breadwinner and held that the mere employment of the deceased employee’s widow on a low-paid post could not automatically disentitle the dependent from compassionate appointment.

The court observed that the authorities had rejected the claim solely because the petitioner’s mother was employed, without undertaking any meaningful assessment of the family’s actual financial hardship and dependency.

The judges emphasized that a welfare-oriented scheme such as compassionate appointment requires contextual consideration rather than rigid application of exclusionary provisions. “Merely because one member of the family is engaged on a low-paid post would not, in every case, conclusively establish that the family has ceased to suffer financial distress,” the Bench observed.

The court also upheld the single judge’s finding regarding alleged discriminatory treatment. It noted that the petitioner had cited instances of similarly situated persons who were granted compassionate appointments despite their mothers being in government service. While the corporation disputed those claims, the Bench found no conclusive material to demonstrate that the findings of the single judge were perverse or unsupported by the record.

Addressing the corporation’s argument that the 2013 compassionate appointment policy barred such appointments where a family member was already in government service, the court acknowledged that compassionate appointment must ordinarily be governed by the prevailing policy and that courts cannot rewrite policy provisions.

However, the Bench clarified that judicial review remains available where authorities act arbitrarily or fail to consider relevant factors. It held that the writ court is not powerless to intervene when the decision-making process suffers from “arbitrariness, non-consideration of relevant factors or mechanical exercise of discretion.”

The Division Bench further rejected the corporation’s contention that the petition deserved dismissal on grounds of delay, noting that the petitioner had continuously pursued his claim through representations and that authorities themselves had kept the matter under consideration for reconsideration.

Finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the single-judge order, the court held that the order was consistent with the humanitarian object underlying compassionate appointment.

“The object of compassionate appointment would stand frustrated if the claim of the writ petitioner is rejected solely on account of the employment of his mother, despite the fact that the family had lost its earning member and continued to face financial hardship,” the Bench observed.