Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Denial of Compassionate Appointment: Family Pension, Son’s Modest Job Deemed Sufficient to Disqualify Claim
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma dismissed a writ appeal concerning the denial of compassionate appointment. The appeal, arising out of an earlier rejection by the Punjab National Bank and subsequent dismissal by the learned Single Judge, was heard and decided after condonation of a delay of 335 days. The Court stated that the appellants failed to demonstrate the existence of financial distress sufficient to merit such an appointment under the applicable scheme.
The appellants, Smt. Dukhiya Bai and her son Gannendra Singh Markam, residents of Village Madanpur in District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, filed a writ appeal against the Punjab National Bank. The grievance stemmed from the rejection of a request for compassionate appointment following the death of Deendayal Markam, husband of the first appellant and father of the second. Deendayal Markam was employed as a Daftari with the Bank’s Bhandarpur Branch and died in harness on 14.11.2014.
After his death, the first appellant applied for compassionate appointment for her son under a scheme dated 25.09.2014 governing such appointments for dependent family members of deceased employees. Upon scrutiny, the Bank rejected the request, citing that the family did not meet the threshold of indigency. The appellants approached the High Court through Writ Petition (S) No. 5333 of 2017, which was dismissed by a Single Judge via order dated 06.03.2024. The appellants then brought this matter before the Division Bench by filing the instant appeal.
Mr. B.P. Rao, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the deceased’s younger son, although employed in government service, earns a monthly salary of Rs. 10,270/- and resides separately in a rented accommodation due to his posting. It was submitted that due to his independent living arrangement, he does not financially support the appellants. The appellants stated that their monthly income consists of Rs. 11,073/- from family pension, Rs. 2,000/- from agriculture, and Rs. 2,500/- from interest on terminal dues deposited in the bank, totalling Rs. 15,573/-.
The appellant contended that the Bank erred in concluding that the family was not facing financial hardship and that the Single Judge failed to appreciate the ground reality while dismissing the writ petition. The appellants relied upon judicial precedents, including the decision of the Supreme Court in Govind Prasad Verma v. LIC of India & Others, (2005) 10 SCC 289, in which it was stated that "receipt of family pension and terminal benefits cannot be the sole ground for denying compassionate appointment." It was submitted that accepting such grounds for rejection would render the scheme of compassionate appointment ineffective for most Central Government employees.
Further reliance was placed on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein it was recorded by the Court that "appointment on compassionate grounds can be considered only if the family is in indigent circumstances i.e., the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and help it get over the emergency."
In response, Mr. Sharad Mishra, counsel for the respondents, submitted that the application for compassionate appointment was duly considered and rejected after evaluating the financial condition of the appellants. It was argued that the scheme is designed to provide relief in situations of acute financial crisis, and the presence of a salaried member in the family, along with pension and other sources of income, indicated that the family was not in a state of destitution.
It was also pointed out that the competent authority assessed all relevant factors before rejecting the claim and that the judgment of the learned Single Judge did not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity.
The Division Bench examined the record, submissions, and the decision of the learned Single Judge. It recorded that "compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule, has to be granted only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family."
The Court referred to the observations made by the learned Single Judge, which were reproduced in the judgment. It was noted that the object of the scheme is to provide immediate support to the family of the deceased employee in cases of sudden financial crisis. The learned Single Judge had recorded that "the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood."
Further, the learned Single Judge had noted that delay in either making the claim or processing it could dilute the underlying urgency and relevance of the scheme. It was stated that "in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost."
The Division Bench also examined the argument concerning the earning member in the family. The Single Judge had earlier observed: "in the instant case, the competent authority has examined the claim of the appellants and found that one of the members of the family is in government service and is getting monthly emoluments to the tune of Rs.10,270/-. Financial condition of the family and their liability even when there is an earning member in the family has also been considered."
The Bench found that the scheme includes safeguards to prevent misuse, specifically stating that "extreme caution has to be observed that in no case, compassionate appointment is circumvented and misused by putting such ground that the member of the family already employed is not supporting the family."
After assessing the submissions and the documents appended with the appeal, the Division Bench found no error in the analysis and findings of the learned Single Judge. It observed that the family’s regular income from pension, agriculture, and interest, along with the earning capacity of the employed son, was sufficient to meet basic needs. The Bench recorded that "we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court."
The Division Bench concluded the matter by stating: "Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s)."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Appellants: Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate
Case Title: Smt. Dukhiya Bai and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:15605-DB
Case Number: WA No. 223 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
[Read/Download order]
