MAHENDRA ADIL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010425152026 2026:CGHC:46649
NAFR
SOURABH
BHILWAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH BHILWAR
Date: 2026.11.05
17:00:52 +0530
WPS No. 7960 of 2026
Mahendra Adil S/o Late Rajendra Adil Aged About 26 Years R/o Word
No. 09 Hiranagar, (Achholi - Urla), Tahsil - Dharsiwan Distt. - Raipur
(C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of
Urban Administration And Development And Chairman, Mahanadi
Bhawan New - Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)
2 – Director, Directed Of Urban Administration And Development
Indravati Bhawan -New Raipur , Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
3 – Collector, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G)
4 - Joint Director, Regional Office -Urban Administration And
Development - Raipur , Distt.-Raipur (C.G.)
5 – Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Birgaon, Distt- Raipur(C.G)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate
For Respondents/ State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate

2
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
04/11/2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondent authorities to change the post offered to him on
compassionate grounds consequent upon the death of his father
and to grant him appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
appointed as a Peon vide order dated 05.05.2026 (Annexure
P/10), pursuant to his application seeking compassionate
appointment consequent upon the death of his father, who was
working as a Revenue Inspector in the Municipal Corporation,
Birgaon and died in harness on 24.07.2025. He submits that,
thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking a
change of his post from Peon to Assistant Grade-III, considering
his higher educational qualifications. On the said application, the
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, sought guidelines from the
Joint Director regarding the availability of the post. Learned
counsel further submits that, as per the applicable policy,
appointments on compassionate grounds to the post of Assistant
Grade-III are permissible only to the extent of 10% of the total
sanctioned strength of the said post. He points out that, as per the
sanctioned strength of the Corporation, there are eight posts of

3
Assistant Grade-III, and the 10% calculation comes to 0.8.
Therefore, the petitioner prays that the respondent authorities be
directed to consider his application for change of post and grant
him compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III.
3. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while
referring to Clause 20(1) of the applicable policy of the State
Government, submit that once an applicant has been granted
compassionate appointment, his subsequent request for
appointment to any other post or for change of the post already
offered cannot be entertained. Learned counsel further placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.G.
(Karmik) v. Prahlad Mani Tripathi , reported in (2007) 6 SCC
162 , wherein it has been held that once an appointment on
compassionate grounds has been consummated, any further or
second consideration for appointment to a higher post on
compassionate grounds does not arise. Learned counsel,
therefore, submit that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief
sought and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings as well as the documents available on record.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been granted
compassionate appointment to the post of Peon, which he has
accepted and joined. Clause 20(1) of the applicable
Compassionate Appointment Policy specifically provides that once

4
an applicant has been granted compassionate appointment, his
subsequent request for appointment to any other post or for
change of the post already offered shall not be accepted. Thus,
the petitioner's subsequent request for change of post from Peon
to Assistant Grade-III cannot be entertained in view of the specific
prohibition contained in the policy.
6. It is a well-settled proposition of law that a candidate has no right
to claim appointment to a particular post of his choice on
compassionate grounds. He can only claim consideration of his
candidature for compassionate appointment consequent upon the
death of the breadwinner, and it is for the competent authority to
decide the matter by taking into consideration various aspects,
including the availability of posts in the establishment. ( See : State
of M.P. and others v. Ramesh Kumar Sharma , 1994 Supp. (3)
SCC 661 ).
7. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.G. (Karmik) (supra) ,
has observed in paragraph 12 as under:
"12. Furthermore, Appellant accepted the said post
without any demur whatsoever. He, therefore, upon
obtaining appointment in a lower post could not have
been permitted to turn round and contend that he was
entitled for a higher post although not eligible therefor.
A person cannot be appointed unless he fulfils the
eligibility criteria. Physical fitness being an essential
eligibility criteria, the Superintendent of Police could not
have made any recommendation in violation of the
rules. Nothing has been shown before us that even the

5
petitioner came within the purview of any provisions
containing grant of relaxation of such qualification.
Whenever, a person invokes such a provision, it would
be for him to show that the authority is vested with
such a power."
8. Applying the well settled law laid down by the Supreme Court and
keeping in view the applicable Compassionate Appointment
Policy, this Court is of the view that once the petitioner has
already been granted appointment on compassionate grounds to
the post of Peon and has accepted and joined the said post, he
cannot subsequently claim a change of post to a higher post of
Assistant Grade-III on the same ground.
9. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the judgments of the
Supreme Court and the specific bar contained in Clause 20(1) of
the applicable policy, this Court finds no ground to issue a
direction to the respondent authorities for changing the petitioner's
post from Peon to Assistant Grade-III. Consequently, the relief
sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
$. Bhilwar