The Chhattisgarh High Court recently rejected a writ appeal filed by a 27-year-old woman seeking compassionate appointment following her mother’s death in 2000. The court upheld an earlier single bench order from April 9, 2025, that had also refused to consider her request. The ruling emphasizes that compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate financial assistance to families facing a sudden crisis and cannot be claimed decades after the government employee's death.

The woman's mother, an assistant teacher, passed away on December 9, 2000, leaving behind two minor daughters and a brother. At the time of her mother's death, the appellant was only three years old. She applied for compassionate appointment on August 5, 2015, after attaining majority. The school education department rejected her application in 2017, which led her to appeal to the High Court.

Her counsel argued that the 1994 policy, which was in effect when her mother died, allowed dependents to apply after reaching adulthood. She further submitted that the family faced hardship because her father allegedly abandoned them soon after her mother's death, forcing them to live with their elderly maternal grandmother.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, emphasized that the woman filed the application 15 years after her mother's death, which is far beyond a reasonable timeframe for compassionate appointment. The court stated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception meant to help families overcome the immediate financial crisis caused by the sudden death of a breadwinner. Granting a job after such a long period would contradict the policy's purpose. The court also noted that the family had survived for many years, indicating that the scheme's purpose no longer existed.

The High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Maharashtra vs.. The Chhattisgarh High Court has consistently reiterated that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general rule and should only be granted when warranted by the family's financial condition.

In a similar case, the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected a plea from a woman seeking compassionate appointment after her husband's death, as the family was deemed financially stable. The court clarified that while the compassionate appointment scheme did not explicitly bar considering dependents with existing earning members, the primary guiding factor should be the family's financial status. The court emphasized that the purpose of compassionate employment is to help the family of the deceased employee cope with the sudden financial crisis caused by the loss of their breadwinner.

These rulings highlight the Chhattisgarh High Court's strict interpretation of compassionate appointment policies, emphasizing the need for immediate financial distress following the death of a government employee. The court has made it clear that such appointments are not a means of providing employment years after the fact but are intended as immediate relief during a time of crisis.