1 2025:CGHC:45738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1684 of 2022  Vivek Singh (Adopted S/o Late Shivnarayan), Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Semra (School Para), Post Nagpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The District Education Officer, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4. The Block Education Officer, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08. 09.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to re-consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of his adopted father late Shivnarayan, in accordance with law. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.09 14:07:47 +0530 2 appropriate.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is nephew of the deceased Shivnarayan, who was posted as Teacher (L.B.) at Government Middle School, Dhulku, Block Manendragarh, District Korea. He died in harness on 24.01.2021. The petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 16.02.2021 and it was rejected by the District Education Officer, Korea vide order dated 11.08.2021 on the ground that according to the policy for compassionate appointment dated 14.06.2013, adopted son is not included in the list of dependants of deceased Government servant. 3. Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that parents of the deceased employee are no more. He would further submit that the petitioner was adopted by the deceased vide adoption-deed dated 20.07.2020 in presence of the witnesses. He would also submit that name of the petitioner is present in service record of the deceased, and therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the deceased died unmarried. He would further submit that the adoption-deed is not a registered-deed and its validity has not been proved by the competent Court. He would contend that in absence of any provisions with regard to grant of compassionate appointment to nephew of an unmarried Government servant, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 6. In the policy of compassionate appointment dated 14.06.2013, the list of eligible candidates, who may claim compassionate appointment is mentioned in para 6 and the same is reproduced herein-below :- 6. अविवित शासकी य सकी की वि ध पर अ कीम्पा वि यक्तित: ऐस शासकी य सकी की मृत्य पर, जो अविवित ( अथ विधर और उसकी कीई पत्र / पत्र! " ) त ऐस दि$%गत शासकी य सकी की (मृत/ विपत की अ शा%स पर) भाई / अविवित ब की अ कीम्पा वि यक्तित की पत्रत ग!। 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is nephew of the deceased Government servant. The deceased remained unmarried and died in harness on 24.01.2021. The adoption-deed was recorded in a simple paper and it is not a registered document and the petitioner has not proved adoption according to the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; therefore, he cannot claim compassionate appointment by virtue of adoption-deed as the policy of compassionate appointment does not permit grant of compassionate appointment to an adopted son of unmarried Government servant; therefore, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities. 8. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant