Compassionate appointment claims cannot be rejected on hyper-technical grounds when legal heirship is established.

The husband of the petitioner, Shiv Prasad Baiga, was employed as a Watchman in the Public Works Department (PWD) and died in harness on August 27, 2021

The petitioner, asserting her status as the legally wedded wife and supported by a successor certificate issued by the Upper Collector, applied for a compassionate appointment to mitigate financial distress

By an order dated June 8, 2022, Respondent No. 2 rejected or kept the application pending on technical grounds: the petitioner’s name was absent from the deceased's service records (which named his mother, Respondent No. 5, as the nominee), and the petitioner failed to obtain the mother’s consent

The State contended that the mother had already received ex-gratia benefits and had filed her own competing application for compassionate appointment

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment based on technical discrepancies and the absence of the mother’s consent was legally sustainable

2. Whether the respondent authorities are required to adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach, as opposed to a hyper-technical one, when considering applications for beneficial schemes such as compassionate appointment

The Court relied on the Compassionate Appointment Policy of the State Government of Chhattisgarh

It applied the established legal principle that the primary objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family of an employee who dies in harness

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a successor certificate issued by a competent authority serves as valid proof of legal status, overriding mere omissions in administrative service records

The Court observed that the rejection/return of the application was based on "technical discrepancies" that did not address the merits of the petitioner's legal status as the widow

It reasoned that because the petitioner held a successor certificate, the authorities were obligated to consider the claim in a "pragmatic and purposive manner" rather than a "hyper-technical" one

The Court noted that since compassionate appointment is a "beneficial scheme," the authorities should prioritize the family's financial distress over procedural omissions in service books

However, the Court also maintained that procedural requirements cannot be entirely dispensed with, necessitating a middle ground where the applicant is given an opportunity to rectify defects

It remanded the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation with supporting documents within 15 days, and the authority was ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 60 days thereafter

The Court explicitly stated it expressed no opinion on the merits of the competing claims between the wife and the mother, leaving the decision to the independent discretion of the authority