1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 06.02.2026 Order passed on : 13.02.2026 WPS No. 4769 of 2023 1 - Vishal Sadhwani S/o Late Deepak Kumar Sindhi Aged About 20 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Dhanwara Para, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Office Of Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Division Champa, Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Engineer Public Work Department, Bilaspur, Mandal, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)] C.A.V. Order 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of the respondent Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 authorities, particularly the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, as communicated vide letter dated 26.05.2023 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby reference has been made to order dated 09.05.2023. The impugned communication/order dated 26.05.2023, as well as the underlying order dated 09.05.2023, are thus illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, and have resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner. Being left without any efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 9/5/23 (Annexure P-5) and also direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the present petitioner in the interest of justice and for the proper adjudication of the case. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the selection process for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to grant the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 3 2. Facts of the case, as canvased are that, the petitioner is the adopted son of Late Shri Deepak Kumar Sindhi, who died in harness on 01.06.2006 while working on the post of Peon in the office of respondent No. 2. At the time of the demise of the deceased employee, the petitioner was a minor. Immediately after performing the last rites and essential ceremonies, the petitioner, upon attaining the age of majority, submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the prevailing policy. Prior to and in continuation of the above, the petitioner also submitted an application before the competent authority seeking release of the retiral benefits of the deceased employee. As the said benefits were not released, the petitioner was constrained to institute a succession case before the competent Civil Court. The learned Court, after due consideration and on the basis of the consent letter dated 03.01.2006, was pleased to pass an order dated 23.04.2013 directing the respondent authorities to release the retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner and further directed them to consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable policy. Despite the aforesaid judicial direction, the respondent authorities did not take any steps to process or decide the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. Consequently, the petitioner was compelled to submit a detailed representation dated 15.12.2021 requesting consideration of his 4 claim for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the respondent authorities, while acting upon the petitioner’s representation, issued communications dated 14.02.2022 and 21.04.2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit certain additional documents. In compliance with the said communications, the petitioner duly submitted all the requisite documents vide letter dated 12.07.2022. Subsequently, vide letter dated 26.05.2023, the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 2 that his application for compassionate appointment had been rejected. The sole ground for rejection, as stated in the said communication and the underlying order dated 09.05.2023, was that under the Compassionate Appointment Policy of the State of Chhattisgarh dated 14.06.2013, an adopted son of a deceased employee is not eligible for grant of compassionate appointment. From the aforesaid factual background, it is manifestly clear that the respondent authorities have acted in an arbitrary, mechanical, and unreasonable manner in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, without due appreciation of the petitioner’s dependency, the judicial recognition accorded to him by the competent Court, and the very object and spirit of compassionate appointment. The impugned action is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner, having no alternative efficacious remedy available, is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court 5 by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, is ex facie unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the said order has been passed in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind to the facts of the case, the settled position of law, and the material placed on record, thereby violating the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have completely failed to appreciate the affidavit and supporting documents submitted by the petitioner, which categorically establish that the deceased employee was issueless and that the petitioner was duly adopted by him during his lifetime. The factum of adoption has been duly proved by cogent documentary evidence, including the consent letter and the affidavit, which have not been disputed by the respondents. Ignoring such material evidence renders the impugned order perverse and arbitrary. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to consider the binding effect of the order passed by the learned Civil Court in Succession Case, wherein, vide order dated 23.04.2013, the petitioner has been categorically held to be the legal heir of the deceased employee. The said judicial 6 determination, having attained finality, is binding on the respondent authorities, and they could not have brushed aside the same while considering the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel submits that the respondent authorities have erred in law in holding that the petitioner, being an adopted son, is not entitled to compassionate appointment. It is well settled that in the eyes of law, an adopted son stands at par with a natural-born son and is entitled to all rights flowing therefrom. The term “son” necessarily includes an adopted son, and any interpretation to the contrary would be discriminatory, unreasonable, and contrary to settled legal principles. Denial of compassionate appointment on this ground alone is thus illegal, perverse, and unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the very object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee and to ensure that the dependents are not left destitute or exposed to penury. In the present case, the petitioner was wholly dependent upon his adopted father, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. After the untimely death of the deceased employee, the petitioner has been facing acute financial hardship and is unable to maintain himself. The respondent authorities, while passing the impugned order, have completely ignored this crucial aspect, thereby frustrating the benevolent object of the scheme. Learned counsel submits that if the 7 impugned order is allowed to stand, the entire purpose of granting compassionate appointment would be defeated. The action of the respondent authorities not only defeats the welfare intent underlying the policy but also results in grave injustice to the petitioner, who has been lawfully recognized as the legal heir and dependent of the deceased employee. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed, and the respondent authorities be directed to consider and grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. At the outset, learned State counsel, submits that the writ petition, as framed and filed, is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and lacks any legal substance. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. Learned State counsel submits that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of gross, inordinate, and unexplained delay and laches. It is contended that the cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner in the year 2006, when the deceased employee died in harness. However, the petitioner chose to submit the application for compassionate appointment only on 15.12.2021, i.e., after an inordinate delay of about 15 years. Such prolonged inaction clearly establishes that the petitioner was sleeping over his alleged rights and, therefore, is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court. It is further 8 submitted that the present petition is not maintainable due to the petitioner’s failure to offer any plausible, cogent, or satisfactory explanation for condonation of such extraordinary delay. The settled principle of law is that stale claims cannot be revived under the writ jurisdiction, particularly in matters relating to compassionate appointment, which is intended to provide immediate succour. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322; Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 471; and State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri, (2015) 15 SCC 602. Learned State counsel submits that it is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. The sole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a deceased Government servant to tide over the immediate financial crisis arising due to the sudden death of the breadwinner. It is neither a mode of recruitment nor a means of providing employment after the passage of several years once the crisis has ceased to exist. It is submitted that the deceased employee was governed by the service conditions and policies applicable to State Government employees. Accordingly, any claim for compassionate appointment could be considered only in accordance with the Compassionate Appointment Policy framed 9 by the State Government. Compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a windfall or largesse, and the same must strictly conform to the governing policy. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon, wherein it has been categorically held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or granted after a significant lapse of time when the immediate crisis has already been overcome. It is, therefore, submitted that since the policy prevailing on the date of death of the deceased employee governs the field, and since the petitioner failed to apply within the stipulated period, he is not entitled to compassionate appointment. The impugned rejection order is lawful, justified, and in consonance with the settled principles of law. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel prays that the present writ petition, being devoid of merit and suffering from gross delay and laches, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and learned State counsel for the respondents. Perused the pleadings, documents placed on record, the impugned orders dated 09.05.2023 and 26.05.2023, as well as the applicable Compassionate Appointment Policy of the State of Chhattisgarh. 6. The core issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner, claiming himself to be an adopted son of 10 an unmarried deceased employee, is entitled to compassionate appointment contrary to the express provisions of the State policy, and whether the impugned rejection order suffers from any illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. From bare perusal of the record, it is quite vivid and undisputed that the deceased employee, Late Shri Deepak Kumar Sindhi, was unmarried at the time of his death and died issueless. The entire claim of the petitioner hinges upon his assertion that he was the adopted son of the deceased employee. However, except for a will allegedly executed in his favour, a nomination entry, and a succession certificate, there is no cogent or legally acceptable documentary evidence on record to establish a valid adoption in accordance with law. No registered deed of adoption, no proof of performance of adoption ceremony, nor any contemporaneous public document has been produced to substantiate the plea of adoption. Merely because the petitioner’s name finds mention in the nomination form, the same does not confer any enforceable right for compassionate appointment. Nomination is meant only for facilitating payment of terminal dues and does not determine status or eligibility for appointment. Similarly, execution of a will in favour of the petitioner cannot enlarge or create a right of compassionate appointment, as such appointment is governed strictly by policy and not by testamentary disposition. 11 8. The succession certificate relied upon by the petitioner shows that it was granted only for a limited amount of Rs. 19,000/- lying in the account of the deceased employee. It is well settled that a succession certificate only enables the holder to receive debts and securities and does not determine legal heirship for service benefits nor does it override service rules or compassionate appointment policies. 9. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. It is an exception carved out to the constitutional scheme of equality under Articles 14 and 16, and therefore must be strictly construed and implemented in accordance with the governing policy. As per the State Government circular/policy, in case of death of an unmarried employee, only the unmarried brother or sister of the deceased employee are eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment. Adopted son is not included within the zone of eligibility under the policy. 10. This Court finds no ambiguity in the policy provision. When the policy consciously restricts eligibility to specific relations, this Court cannot expand the scope by judicial interpretation, as doing so would amount to rewriting the policy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, has held that compassionate appointment has to be made strictly in accordance with the policy in force and 12 courts cannot direct appointment by expanding the scope of eligibility. It was held as under : “18. While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognises that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a dependent member of the family could be considered. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfil the terms of the policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But, where there is a policy, a dependent member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to 13 seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State.” 11. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the petitioner was treated as an adopted son for civil purposes, such status does not automatically entitle him to compassionate appointment, unless the policy expressly recognizes such category. Thus, personal law concepts of adoption cannot override express service policy provisions governing compassionate appointment. The deceased employee died on 01.06.2006, whereas the petitioner approached the authorities after an inordinate delay of about 15 years. Compassionate appointment is intended to meet immediate financial crisis, not to provide employment as a deferred benefit. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, has authoritatively held that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. It cannot be granted after the crisis is over. It was held as under : “2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the 14 basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a 15 job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family……..” 13. The order passed in the succession case merely directed release of retiral dues and observed that the claim for compassionate appointment may be considered “in accordance with policy”. Such observation does not confer any substantive right, nor does it bind the employer to grant compassionate appointment contrary to policy. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions taken in accordance with law and policy. Unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or illegal, interference is unwarranted. The impugned order dated 19.05.2023 clearly records reasons, applies the relevant policy, and rejects the claim strictly in accordance with law. No perversity or arbitrariness is demonstrated. 14. From the entire material available on record, it is quite vivid that the deceased employee was unmarried and issueless. The petitioner failed to establish valid adoption by cogent legal evidence. Nomination, will, and succession certificate do not confer a right to compassionate appointment. The State policy does not recognize adopted son as an eligible category in case of death of an unmarried employee. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted on equitable or sympathetic considerations 16 dehors the policy. The respondent authorities have rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim by a reasoned order. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, findings, and settled position of law, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The impugned order dated 19.05.2023/26.05.2023 does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE 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 02.02.2026 13.02.2026 - 13.02.2026