Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, says HC

Raipur: Chhattisgarh high court has ruled that compassionate appointment is a one-time concession granted to alleviate financial hardship caused by the death of a govt employee, and not a "vested right that can be used to claim higher or alternative posts".
Dismissing a writ petition seeking upgrade from a Class-IV post to Class-III, the bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey emphasised that once such an appointment is accepted the benefit stands exhausted.
The petitioner, whose father was a chowkidar with the public works department and died in harness in March 2018, had applied for compassionate appointment. When he claimed eligibility for the post of driver, he was offered the post of gardener through an order dated Sept 1, 2018. He objected to this post, and a recommendation was made by the PWD executive engineer for his appointment as driver. However, he eventually took up the post of gardener under protest.
The petitioner relied on a govt circular of June 14, 2013, which allows for appointments to Class-III posts on compassionate grounds if the dependent has the requisite educational qualifications. 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 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 — although under protest — constituted finality under the scheme, high court concluded that the claim for upgrade lacked merit and dismissed the petition.