Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Rejection of Compassionate Appointment Claim by SECL Family

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 90 | 2026:CGHC:805-DB

January 07, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the family of a deceased South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) employee, affirming that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right when an earning family member already exists and the applicable policy bars such appointment.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma upheld the earlier decision of a Single Judge, who had rejected the family’s plea for compassionate appointment to the deceased employee’s son.

The case arose from the death of Lakhan Lal Chandra, who was serving as a Subordinate Engineer with SECL and passed away on December 26, 2018 due to sudden illness. Following his death, his son sought compassionate appointment. However, SECL rejected the request in August 2020 on the ground that the deceased employee’s wife was already employed as a teacher and was also receiving pensionary benefits.

Challenging this decision, the family argued that SECL had failed to consider an amended circular issued on June 25, 2024, which permits consideration of compassionate appointment even where another dependent is already in service. They also contended that the deceased employee was governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which does not impose an absolute bar on such appointments merely because another dependent is employed.

SECL, on the other hand, maintained that compassionate appointment claims are governed strictly by the policy in force on the date of the employee’s death. Since the amended 2024 circular had no retrospective effect, it could not apply to a death that occurred in 2018. The company further argued that the deceased was treated as an executive employee for service purposes, making the executive circular dated March 13, 1981 applicable. Clause (vii) of that circular expressly prohibits compassionate appointment if one dependent is already employed, irrespective of whether the employment is temporary or permanent, or whether it is with SECL or another organization.

After examining the record, the High Court agreed with SECL’s position. The Bench reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and is intended only to relieve immediate financial distress. It is not a vested right and must strictly conform to the governing policy.

The Court held that the 2024 amended circular could not be applied retrospectively and that the executive policy of 1981 was rightly invoked. It also found no material on record to establish acute financial hardship warranting deviation from the policy. The existence of an earning member in the family, the Court noted, disentitled the claimant under the applicable scheme.

Finding no perversity or legal error in the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and declined to interfere with the rejection of the compassionate appointment claim. No order as to costs was passed.

Case Reference : WA No. 964 of 2025, Minketan Chandra and Another v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others; Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, Advocate; Counsel for the Respondents (SECL): Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate.