1 CGHC010333742019 2026:CGHC:31693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8396 of 2019 Rahul Tiwari S/o Shri Shobhanath Tiwari (Adopted Son) Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Kosla, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Office Of Collectorate, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Krishi Vipnan Board, Bij Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Additional Director Chhattisgarh State Krishi Vipnan Board, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Joint Director Chhattisgarh State Krishi Vipnan Board, Divisional Office, Nai Ganj Mandi, First Floor, Pandri Kanpa, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Mr. Anil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K Agrawal (Order on Board) 24.07.2026 1. In this petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 20.02.2018 (Annexure-P/11), whereby his claim for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is nephew of the deceased government servant (Shobhanath Tiwari), but by way of adoption deed (Annexure-P/01), the petitioner became the adopted son of the deceased government servant before his death and, as such, he is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Even otherwise, the said adoption deed has duly been produced by the petitioner before the respondents-authorities, yet the same has not been considered and petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. Thus, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the rejection order and prays for dismissal of this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, since the petitioner has submitted the adoption deed (Annexure-P/01) before the respondent-authorities stating that he is the adopted son of the deceased government servant, it ought to have been considered by the respondent-competent authority, which they failed to do so. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-P/11) rejecting claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is hereby quashed. The matter is 3 remitted to the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with law. However, it is open for the respondents to verify the validity of the adoption deed (Annexure-P/01) and to find out whether the petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased government servant or not and take final decision within 45 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands finally disposed of. sd/- (Sanjay K Agrawal) Judge s@if