Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses petitioner's appeal for compassionate appointment filed 14 years post father's demise
In a recent judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, has upheld the decision of the State authorities to reject the application for compassionate appointment filed by Nijesh Chauhan. Chauhan's petition was dismissed due to excessive delay, as he sought appointment on compassionate grounds 14 years after the death of his father.
The case revolves around the petitioner's father, who passed away in 2005 while serving as a Circle Coordinator in Raigarh District, Chhattisgarh. At the time, Nijesh Chauhan was a minor, and his mother initially informed the authorities, seeking compassionate appointment for her son. However, complications arose due to family disputes, with both wives of the deceased vying for compassionate appointments for their sons.
The petitioner eventually filed his application for compassionate appointment in June 2019, after attaining majority and resolving the family disputes through civil litigation. Despite the effort, the application was rejected in 2020 on grounds of delay and ineligibility. Chauhan's subsequent appeal to the High Court was again dismissed, with the court emphasizing that compassionate appointments are intended to address immediate financial hardship and cannot be claimed after a prolonged period.
Justice Prasad highlighted the essence of compassionate appointments, stating they are not vested rights but exceptional measures to address pressing financial needs at the time of a government employee's death. The court noted that the Chhattisgarh policy mandates applications to be filed within five years from the date of death, which was not adhered to in this case.
The judgment cited several Supreme Court rulings, reinforcing the principle that compassionate appointments should strictly comply with policy frameworks to ensure equality in public employment. The court concluded that entertaining such delayed claims would defeat the purpose of the scheme and undermine constitutional mandates of equality.
The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner's claim was devoid of merit and suffered from unexplained delay. The judgment also noted the absence of documentary evidence to support claims of delay due to family disputes.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must strictly adhere to the eligibility conditions, timelines, and procedural requirements outlined in the governing policies.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, Chhattisgarh Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2003 and amendments.
Nijesh Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2843221
