1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1211 of 2023 Judgment Reserved On : 20.02.2026. Judgment Delivered On : 09.04.2026. Swapnil Tiwari S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Mishra Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Itwari Bazar, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 491881. ... Petitioner. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisarh 492002. 2 - Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G. 492001. 3 - Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Rajnandgaon C.G. 491881. ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Shri Ashish Pandey appears on behalf of Shri Vivek Chopda, Advocates. For State/Respondents : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. Petitioner by way of this Writ Petition has called in question the order dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 whereby, AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.13 20:05:00 +0530 2 application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment due to death of his mother namely Mrinalini Mishra (for short "deceased employee") has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ quashing the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the respondent state authorities. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ directing the respondent state authorities to grant the petitioner compassionate appointment within such time frame as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be awarded. 3. Case as projected by the petitioner is like that he is the adopted son of Late Mrs. Mrinalini Mishra and prior to that a proud citizen of India and having thus granted all the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner has been adopted by Late Smt. Mrinalini Mishra on 15.08.2000 as per the custom prevailing in their caste and thereafter in the year 2008 a formal affidavit has been executed between the parties affirming that the adoption has been made lawfully and the same was then recorded in the service records of the petitioner's mother in the year 2008 itself and there is no dispute with regard to the adoption of the petitioner from any of the parties. However as per the requirement of law on 03.04.2018 a registered deed of adoption has been 3 made and duly registered as per law. It is submitted that the petitioner's mother Late Mrs. Mrinalini Mishra was posted as Assistant Grade-3 in the Rural Engineering Services, Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon C.G. and she had unblemished carrier all along without there being any complaint or misconduct on her part but due to medical reasons, the petitioner's mother on 04.11.2016 applied for Voluntary retirement of her services. The petitioner says and submit that even before the decision on the VRS Application could be taken by the respondent Authority the said Smt. Mrinalini on 09.01.2017 gave an application for revocation of the Voluntary retirement of her services opted by her as her medical issues were treated and she was fit to work but the same was not acted upon by the then Executive Engineer and the same was forwarded to the office of Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. after a delay of 30 months i.e., on 06.05.2019. The petitioner says and submits that even before any action could have been taken upon the application for voluntary retirement an application as aforesaid for revocation was made by Smt. Mrinalini however ignoring the said application which was kept pending for almost 30 months the same was acted upon after inordinate delay by the respondent state authorities and vide their Order dated 11.09.2017 accepted the said application for retirement. It is submitted that the petitioner's mother expired on 08.05.2018 thus, the application for revocation of retirement of the petitioner's mother was forwarded by the Executive Engineer after her death i.e, on 06.05.2019 and hence, no 4 actions whatsoever was taken by the respondent state authorities on the said application till the death of the petitioner's mother. It is submitted that the Executive Engineer on 07.06.2021 directed the father of the petitioner to submit information for providing pension or compassionate appointment it was further observed by the Executive Engineer that in the event the information as sought for is not received by them then the entire responsibility would be upon the petitioner's father. Here it would be just and proper to state that no specific information was sought under the said letter as to what details are required yet an intimidation was given to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioner on 26.08.2021 has filed an application seeking compassionate appointment on behalf of his mother who died in service (as the revocation was not acted upon), before the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering services, Rajnandgaon, C.G. That on 01.09.2021 the Executive Engineer wrote to the office of the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Civil Lines, Raipur seeking directions in the matter of compassionate appointment as there has been a delay of 30 months in forwarding the application of revocation of VRS and meanwhile the applicant died. That on 26.10.2021 the Executive Engineer again wrote to the office of the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Civil Lines, Raipur stating the reasons as to why such a delay has occurred and why the revocation of the VRS could not be done and also sought clarification in the matter of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Chief Engineer, Raipur wrote to the Executive 5 Engineer on 16.11.2021 asking under which rule the Compassionate appointment would be made as no actions whatsoever was taken by the concerned official regarding revocation of the VRS of Late Mrs. Mrinalini Mishra as the letter was only forwarded to him after her death. It is submitted that from the abovementioned factual matrix it becomes crystal clear that the irresponsible attitude of the officials of the respondent state authorities has led to violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and her deceased mother and other family members. Hence, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing a Writ Petition (S) No. 4215 of 2022 seeking directions to the respondent authorities to decide the application of the petitioner. That the petition of the petitioner was disposed off by this Hon'ble Court on 24.06.2022 wherein a direction was given to the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner within 120 days. It is submitted that the petitioner on 09.07.2022 made a representation to the respondent authorities requesting them to act upon the directions of this Hon'ble Court and to decide his application for compassionate appointment. That the respondent authority on 03.10.2022 replied to the representation of the petitioner wherein the respondent authority stated that only a competent Court of law can decide upon the subject of adoption and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court lacks decision on the subject of adoption and thus, directed the petitioner to furnish certified copy of the order of the competent court wherein the adoption of the petitioner is decided. It is submitted that the petitioner after 6 receiving such an arbitrary reply from the respondent authorities replied to the letter dated 03.10.2022 of the respondent authorities on 02.11.2022 wherein the petitioner attached the copy of the registered adoption deed as well as the copy of the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court. That the respondent authorities on 23.12.2022 passed an order wherein the respondent authorities rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the grounds that the mother of the petitioner was granted voluntary retirement and after that she passed away and thus, compassionate appointment cannot be granted. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have kept on changing reasons for denial of the rightful claims of the petitioner which is nothing but illegal and arbitrary usage of the powers which the respondent authorities are holding. It is submitted that the illegal and arbitrary actions of the respondent authorities was proved on various occasions which are as follows: A. When the application for revocation of VRS was withheld unjustifiably for a period of 30 months which was admitted by the Executive Engineer in its letter dated 01.09.2021 and 26.10.2021. (Annexure-P/9 & Annexure-P/10). B. When the application for revocation of VRS was received after the death of the petitioner's mother which was admitted by the Chief Engineer in its letter dated 16.11.2021. (Annexure-P/11). C. When no actions whatsoever was taken upon the application for compassionate appointment dated 26.08.2021 by the respondent authorities. D. When the respondent authorities firstly denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that only a 7 competent Court of law can decide upon the subject of adoption and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court lacks decision on the subject of adoption. E. When the respondent authorities again on 23.12.2022 denied the claim of the petitioner by creating a new ground that Compassionate appointment cannot be granted when the employee dies after grant of VRS even when the respondent authorities very well know that the application was submitted by the petitioner's mother for revocation of VRS applications. It is most pertinent to mention here that the respondent authorities somehow wants to reject the claim of the petitioner for the reasons best known to them and the same fact becomes crystal clear as the respondent authorities have every time taken a new ground to reject the claim of the petitioner and have thus, acted illegally and arbitrarily in granting the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that vide their order dated 23.12.2022 the respondent authorities for the very first time have mentioned two letters of the petitioner's mother wherein she accepted the VRS and basing on these letters the VRS was granted and it is pertinent to mention here that these letters were never mentioned before by the respondent authorities. Also, the respondent herein as per their own admissions were unable to forward and act upon the application for revocation of VRS for over 30 months and the same could only be received in the office of Chief Engineer after the death of petitioner's mother but now the respondent authorities have acted against their usual behavior and lethargic attitude and have now found/created two letters of the petitioner's 8 mother wherein she accepted the VRS and the same is nothing but an after thought when the petitioner herein filed the Writ petition before this Hon'ble Court to somehow deny the appointment of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a married man and has two children as also has an old aged father who is dependent on him for his daily needs, thus the petitioner is in dire need of the job which he is entitled to being the adopted son of late Mrs. Mrinalini Mishra. Petitioner has made several requests to the respondent state authorities but the same has fell into deaf ears of the respondent state authorities and the petitioner is struggling every day for sustaining lives of his family only because of the lethargic attitude adopted by few people holding responsible posts at the Rural Engineering Services. It is submitted that present is not the case where there has been a fault on behalf of the petitioner but the respondent stare authorities for the reasons best known to them have made mockery of the lives of the petitioner and his family and grave injustice has been done by the few holding powers. It is also submitted that the initially the deceased mother of the petitioner have been made run from pillar to post to get her VRS revoked and even the revocation was not done and now the petitioner has been treated the same for getting a job by way of compassionate appointment for which he has all the rights. This is nothing but an arm-twisting method of the officials of the respondent state authorities in order to gain unlawful benefits from the poor and needy family of the petitioner. Thus, the instant petition is being filed against the respondent authorities since the act of the 9 respondent authorities is materially illegal and arbitrary and in breach of the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that deceased employee sought voluntary retirement by making application on 04.11.2016 and the deceased employee passed away on 08.05.2018. Hence, after 04.11.2016, the deceased employee was no more in services of the respondents and as such, claim of the petitioner was not accepted which is not in accordance with law since application for grant of voluntary retirement was kept pending for about 1 year and during that period, on 09.01.2017, deceased employee filed an application for revocation of VRS application dated 04.11.2016, however on 11.09.2017, the respondent authorities passed an order granting VRS to the deceased employee. The fact remains that the deceased employee has filed an application for revocation of the VRS application on 09.01.2017, however, without considering the said application, order dated 11.09.2017 has been passed by which, deceased employee has been granted VRS. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned order for rejection of application of compassionate appointment that on the death of deceased employee on 08.05.2018, the deceased employee was no more in services of the respondents is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent authorities have assigned reasons for not acting upon the deceased employee's revocation 10 application because deceased employee gave a subsequent application for VRS but earlier no such reason was given. 6. The lackadiasical approach adopted by the respondent authorities has ended the petitioner and his family in grave hardship because if the respondent authorities would have done their job in a proper manner by forwarding the revocation letter as early as possible then the illegality of acting upon the VRS application and grant of VRS to the deceased employee would not have happened. 7. Learned counsel submits that it has been admitted by the respondent authorities that deceased employee applied for revocation of VRS application and they even accepted there was delay of about 30 months on their part in forwarding the said revocation application. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was dependent upon the deceased employee and as the deceased employee had filed application for revocation of VRS application and since on 07.06.2021, the concerned Executive Engineer wrote letter to the father of the petitioner regarding grant of service dues in respect of deceased employee and compassionate appointment, as such, petitioner deserves to get compassionate appointment. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shambhu Murari Sinha vs. Project & Development India Ltd. and Another {(2002) 3 SCC 437}, stating that when the application for revocation of voluntary retirement is 11 pending for consideration, the concerned employee cannot be treated to be voluntary retired unless and until the said application has been decided. 10.Further, he would place reliance in the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of J. N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Another {(1998) 9 SCC 559}, Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Private Limited v. Official Liquidator of Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited (IN LIQUIDATION) and Others {(2018) 10} SCC 707}, Balbir Kaur and Another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others {(2000) 6 SCC 493}, State of Maharashtra vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar {1989 Supp (1) SCC 393}. 11. Considering the backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for grant of reliefs as sought by the petitioner. 12. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that deceased employee had moved an application for grant of voluntary retirement which was considered on 11.09.2017, before the death of deceased employee which took place on 08.05.2018. As such, on the date of death of deceased employee, deceased employee (mother of the petitioner) was no more in service, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek compassionate appointment when his mother herself chose to voluntarily retire. 13.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition. 14.The word "died in harness" refers to a government servant or employee who passes away while still in active service prior to retirement. This status 12 triggers benefit like compassionate appointment under specific rules. It is designed to mitigate immediate financial hardship for the deceased employee's family. 15.It is well settled that only those cases may be considered for grant of appointment on compassionate basis where an employee dies in harness as the sole purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief and succor to the penurious family in distress. Appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. (See: Haryana State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Hakim Singh1; State of Manipur v. Md. Rajaodin2 and State of J and K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir3). 16. As observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, 1 (1997) 8 SCC 85 2 AIR 2003 SCW 4339 3 2006 (5) SCC 766 13 the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified. {see: Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, (2022) 10 SCC 172 }. Relevant paragraph 16 reads as under:- 16. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds 14 cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the respondent that the appointment is not on compassionate grounds but the same be called as varas hakka cannot be accepted. Even if the same be called as varas hakka the same is not supported by any scheme and even the same also can be said to be violative of Article 14 as well as Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 17. In the present case, the deceased employee (mother of the petitioner) died on 08.05.2018 after her voluntary retirement on 11.09.2017 which means that she was not in services when she died, as such, this Court after considering the overall fact situation of the case and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its catena of decisions, is of the view that impugned order dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) by which claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected, does not warrant interference by this Court. 18.Case laws cited by counsel for the petitioner are factually different and are of no help to the petitioner in the present case. 19.In the result, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash 15 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 20.02.2026 09.04.2026 ------ 13.04.2026