The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ appeal seeking compassionate appointment for the son of a deceased bank employee, ruling that such appointments must not be misused when the family is not in financial distress.

The case involved Smt. Dukhiya Bai and her son, Gannendra Singh Markam, who applied for compassionate appointment following the death of her husband, Deendayal Markam, a Daftari at Punjab National Bank. The request was rejected on the grounds that the family was not indigent. Despite this, the appellants claimed they were facing financial difficulties.

Read also: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Mark Deduction for Typing Undictated Words in Stenographer Test

Their plea was earlier dismissed by a Single Judge on March 6, 2024. Challenging that, they approached a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma.

“It is rightly taken into consideration that the object of granting compassionate appointment is only to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis,” the Court observed.
“Extreme caution has to be observed that in no case, compassionate appointment is circumvented and misused by putting such ground that the member of the family already employed is not supporting the family.”

Read also: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses PIL Over Malhar Mahotsav Funding, Cites Private Agenda

The Court reviewed the family's income, which included a family pension of ₹11,073, agricultural income of ₹2,000, and bank interest of ₹2,500 monthly. The appellants argued that their younger son earned only ₹10,270 monthly and lived separately in a rented house, making him unable to support them.

They cited a 2014 compassionate appointment scheme stating that there was no bar if another family member was earning. They also referred to Supreme Court judgments, including Govind Prasad Verma v. LIC of India and Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, to argue that terminal benefits should not disqualify dependents from compassionate appointment.

Read also: Last Seen Theory Needs Corroboration: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Rape-Murder Case

However, the Court held that compassionate appointments are exceptions and should be based strictly on financial hardship.

“Compassionate appointment... has to be granted only in warranting situations and circumstances. Guiding factor should be the financial condition of the family,” the Court emphasized.

Finding no illegality or error in the earlier judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants were not in a position of penury as required under the scheme.

“The sense of immediacy is diluted and lost... inheritance based on line of succession is contrary to the Constitution,” the Court remarked.

The case makes it clear that compassionate appointments are not automatic entitlements and must be guided by genuine financial need.

Case Title: Smt. Dukhiya Bai v. Punjab National Bank