The Bench dismissed the writ petition by agreeing with the Single Judge that compassionate appointment is a policy measure for financial succor, not a right to bargain for a specific post based on mere eligibility.
Writ appeal failed and was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
WA No. 383 of 2019
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 383 of 2019
(Arising out of the order dated 8.3.2019 passed in WP(S) No.4974 of 2011)
---- Petitioner
Versus
5. Executive Engineering Public Works Department, Division Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellant Mr. Ritesh Giri, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Chandresh Shrivastav, Dy. AG
Proceedings through Video Conferencing
DB.: Hon'ble Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. C.J &
Hon'ble Mrs. Rajani Dubey, J.
2
WA No. 383 of 2019
Order on Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. C.J.
6/7/2021
3
WA No. 383 of 2019
bread winner of the family.
Sd/- Sd/-
Shyna
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a dependent of a deceased government servant is entitled to compassionate appointment on a specific Class III post of their choice.
Whether the refusal to appoint the petitioner to a specific post was illegal given his eligibility qualifications.
Whether compassionate appointment constitutes a source of recruitment rather than a benevolent measure.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of M.P. and Others Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 661Explained¶5
State of M.P. and Others Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 661 · Who else cites this
Narendra Kumar Girre
State Of Chhattisgarh
Prashant Kumar Mishra
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
