Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed if the deceased employee held work-charged or permanent classified status without regularization.

The petitioner, Shivram Sharma, challenged an order dated February 19, 2026, which rejected his application for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, Late Shri Gopal Sharma, who died in harness on December 13, 2025

The petitioner argued that although his father began as a daily wager, he had been granted "permanent classification" in 2013 with a regular pay scale and increments

The State contended that the deceased remained a work-charged/daily wage employee receiving a fixed pay, rather than a regular government servant, making his dependents ineligible for appointment under the applicable policy

1. Whether a dependent of a "permanently classified" work-charged or daily wage employee is entitled to compassionate appointment under the prevailing state policy

2. Whether the legality of a claim for compassionate appointment is governed by the policy in force on the date of the employee's death or a subsequent modified scheme

The court applied the Departmental Circular dated September 29, 2014, specifically Clause 11.1, which restricts compassionate appointment to regular employees and excludes daily wagers or work-charged staff, offering only ex-gratia payments to the latter

It relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedent in Secretary to Govt. Deptt. Of Education (Primary) v. Bheemesh (2021), which established that the policy prevalent on the date of death is the sole determinate factor for eligibility

The court cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas (2020) to distinguish between "permanent status" and "regular status," affirming that work-charged employees do not qualify for appointment benefits

The court reasoned that compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment rules and not a vested right; therefore, it must be governed strictly by the parameters of the existing scheme

Applying the Bheemesh principle, the court determined that since the petitioner's father died in 2025, the 2014 Policy was the governing framework

The court analyzed the deceased's service record and found that despite the "permanent classification," he was not a "regular" employee of the state

Because the 2014 Circular explicitly excludes work-charged and daily wage establishments from compassionate appointment—providing only for ex-gratia financial assistance—the court found no legal basis to compel the State to offer a post to the petitioner

It affirmed that the 2014 Policy only permits ex-gratia payments for dependents of work-charged staff, which had already been processed. Consequently, the High Court found no merit in the challenge to the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition