Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right: Chhattisgarh HC dismisses plea for post upgradation

RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh high court has ruled that compassionate appointment is a one-time concession granted to alleviate financial hardship caused by the death of a government employee and not a vested right that can be used to claim higher or alternative posts.
Dismissing a writ petition seeking upgradation from a Class-IV post of gardener to a Class-III post of driver, the Single Bench presided by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey emphasised that once such an appointment is accepted—even under protest—the benefit stands exhausted.
The petitioner, whose father was employed as a Chowkidar in the Public Works Department and died in harness in March 2018, had applied for compassionate appointment.
While he claimed eligibility for the post of driver, he was offered the post of gardener through an order dated September 1, 2018. Though he initially objected and a recommendation was made by the executive engineer, PWD, for his appointment as driver, he ultimately joined the post of gardener under protest.
The petitioner relied on a government circular dated June 14, 2013, which allows for appointment to Class-III posts on compassionate grounds if the dependent is educationally qualified. However, the Court cited binding precedents to clarify that the compassionate appointment scheme is governed by administrative discretion and availability of posts.
Referring to earlier judgments including Anusuiya Oti v. State of Chhattisgarh and I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahlad Mani Tripathi, the Court reiterated that any further or upgraded claim after accepting a compassionate appointment is impermissible and amounts to seeking “endless compassion,” a concept that has been expressly disapproved by the Supreme Court.
“Compassionate appointment is not a mode of regular recruitment but a limited exception intended to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family. Judicial review in such matters is narrowly confined, and courts cannot override administrative decisions guided by policy,” the order stated.
Holding that the petitioner’s acceptance of the Gardener post—despite being under protest—constituted finality under the scheme, the high court concluded that the claim for upgradation lacked merit and dismissed the petition.