Chhattisgarh High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner/ Gardener seeking upgradation to the post of Driver, a Single Bench of Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J., rejected the petition, holding that once the petitioner has been appointed, even under protest, to the post of Gardener, the claim for up-gradation to the post of Driver was not legally sustainable since his appointment was compassionate based.
Background
In 2018, the petitioner’s father, who was working as a Chowkidar in the Public Works Department, died in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. He was issued an appointment order to the post of Gardener, a Class-IV post. The petitioner refused to consent to the post, and subsequently, the authorities recommended his name for the post of Driver, a Class-III post. However, despite such recommendation and eligibility, he was not granted the appointment to the post of Driver, and instead, the impugned appointment order was issued for the post of Gardener. The petitioner accepted the offer and joined Gardner’s post.
However, aggrieved by the impugned order, he filed the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that compassionate appointment is not a right, but a concession granted under service jurisprudence to mitigate the immediate financial crisis faced by the family of the deceased government servant. It cannot be treated as a mode of regular employment, nor can it be pressed for higher entitlement beyond the scope of the scheme or guidelines. The appointment under the scheme is subject to the availability of posts, administrative discretion, and satisfaction of other procedural requirements.
The Court stated that though the petitioner’s name was recommended for the post of Driver the final appointment was made to the post of Gardener, which he joined despite disagreement.
In this regard, the Court placed reliance on Smt. Anusuiya Oti v. State of Chhattisgarh1, wherein the Court held that once a person is granted the appointment on compassionate grounds and has accepted and joined, the claim for a change or up-gradation of the post is not maintainable. The Court also relied on I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007) 6 SCC 162, wherein, the Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is a one-time benefit, and the beneficiary cannot seek further consideration or betterment of position on that basis.
Considering the above, the Court held that once the petitioner has been appointed, even under protest, to the post of Gardener, the claim for up-gradation to the post of Driver was not legally sustainable. Acceptance of appointment, even under protest, amounts to exhaustion of the one-time benefit. There cannot be endless negotiation or choice in such appointments, which are an exception to the general rule of recruitment. Further, the Court stated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but an exception carved out by administrative policy to provide immediate support. Judicial intervention in such matters is limited, and the Courts are not expected to substitute administrative decisions with their own preferences.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
[Abhinay Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 4991, decided on 25-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Ravi Bhagat
For the respondent: Prateek Tiwari
1. WPS No. 4324 of 2015
