Younger son gets compassionate govt job after father's death; HC cancels his appointment and rules that elder son should get priority

Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed a compassionate appointment granted to a younger son of a deceased government employee, ruling that the elder son holds first priority under the applicable government circular and that the appointment was made without following the correct order of consideration.

The order was passed on 11 August 2026 by Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in a writ petition filed by the elder son challenging an appointment order dated 7 August 2019.

Also read:Man fails to get any suitable marriage match from matrimonial website: Consumer commission orders Rs 20,000 payout


What happened after the government employee died

The deceased, Ishwar Singh Kshatriya, was working as a Peon at a government higher secondary school in Dharampura, District Mungeli, when he died in service on 29 September 2016.

He had two wives. The petitioner is the son from his first wife, Usha Bai. The fourth respondent in the case is the son from his second wife, Milaukin Bai. In government records, the second wife and her children had been entered as nominees.

A succession case followed, in which the court initially granted 1/8th share to each legal heir excluding the second wife. The second wife and her children challenged this before the District Judge, Mungeli, who modified the order and held that all legal heirs of the deceased would be entitled to an equal 1/8th share.

Why was the elder son's application rejected initially?

When the elder son applied for compassionate appointment, the District Education Officer rejected his application in September 2018, not on merit, but on the ground that the second wife's appeal in the succession case was still pending before the District Court and that her consent had not been obtained.

The younger son was subsequently granted compassionate appointment by the District Education Officer vide order dated 7 August 2019. The elder son challenged this before the High Court.

Does a son from a second marriage qualify for compassionate appointment?

The court addressed this squarely, noting that the Supreme Court had settled the question in Union of India versus V.R. Tripathi (2019) and again in Mukesh Kumar versus Union of India (2022), both of which held that a child born from a second marriage of a deceased government employee is legitimate and equally entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment.

The High Court held that both sons, the elder from the first wife and the younger from the second wife, were entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. The question then was which of the two should get priority.

Elder son priority in compassionate appointment: what the law says

The court examined the Chhattisgarh government circular dated 14 June 2013, revised in March and April 2016, which sets out the order of preference for compassionate appointments. The circular places the widow or widower first, followed by son or adopted son, then daughter, and so on. Both widows in this case had not applied for compassionate appointment, making the sons the next eligible category.

However, the court noted that the circular is silent on how to decide between two sons in the same category.

To resolve this, the High Court relied on a Patna High Court ruling in Raj Kishore Kumar versus State of Bihar (2009), which held that entitlement to compassionate appointment must be considered in order of seniority, meaning the elder brother has first priority, and the younger brother's case is considered only if the elder brother's claim is rejected. The same principle was followed by the Jharkhand High Court in two separate cases in 2014.

Justice Agrawal said he fully agreed with the view taken by the Patna High Court and endorsed the principle as valid, rational, and justified.

What Chhattisgarh HC ruled on compassionate appointment priority

The court held that the petitioner, being the elder son of the deceased government servant, was entitled to compassionate appointment in preference to the younger son, and that the 2019 order granting the appointment to the younger son was legally unsustainable.

The impugned order of the District Education Officer, Mungeli, dated 7 August 2019 was quashed. The matter was remitted to the District Education Officer to pass a fresh order after hearing the elder son, subject to his fulfilling other eligibility criteria as on the date of his original application.

The fresh order must be passed within 30 days of receipt of a copy of the High Court's order. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.