News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 110 | 2026:CGHC:699
January 06, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a compassionate appointment, holding that eligibility must be assessed under the policy in force on the date the application is considered, not the date of the employee’s death.
The case was filed by Apresh Kujur, whose father, Anoop Kujur, died in service in December 2007 while working as an Assistant Teacher. Nearly nine years later, in August 2016, Apresh Kujur was granted compassionate appointment as an Assistant Grade III. However, the appointment was revoked in February 2019 by the District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, after it was found that the petitioner’s mother was already employed in government service at the time of his appointment.
The revocation was based on a state policy dated August 29, 2016, which bars compassionate appointment if any member of the deceased employee’s family is already in government employment. At the relevant time, the petitioner’s mother was serving as a Headmaster in a government school.
Challenging the cancellation, the petitioner argued that his case ought to have been evaluated under the policy prevailing on the date of his father’s death in 2007, when no such disqualification existed. It was contended that applying a later policy retrospectively was arbitrary and illegal.
The State opposed the petition, relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence which holds that compassionate appointment claims must be decided according to the norms applicable on the date of consideration of the application. Reference was made to the three-judge bench ruling in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and the subsequent decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Abhishek Kumar.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, after examining the record and the applicable law, rejected the petitioner’s contention. The Court noted that compassionate appointment does not create a vested right upon the death of a government employee and that a dependent can only seek consideration under the policy in force at the time the claim is examined.
The Court held that since the petitioner’s application was considered in August 2016, the policy dated August 29, 2016 squarely applied. As the policy clearly prohibited compassionate appointment where a family member was already in government service, the revocation of the petitioner’s appointment was found to be lawful and justified.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it and upheld the order cancelling the compassionate appointment, without imposing costs.
Case Reference : WPS No. 2796 of 2019, Apresh Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh, with Mr. Kaushal Yadav appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia along with Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyers, representing the State-respondents.
