1 2026:CGHC:18834-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 330 of 2026 Vishal Sadhwani S/o Late Deepak Kumar Sindhi Aged About 23 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Dhanwara Para, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Office Of Executive Engineer Public Work Department Division Champa, Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Engineer Public Work Department Bilaspur, Mandal, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.04.25 11:27:10 +0530 2 respondents / State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S). No. 4769/2023 (Vishal Sadhwani vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ 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 writ petitioner was a minor. Immediately after performing the last rites and essential ceremonies, the writ 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 writ 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 writ 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 writ petitioner and further directed them to consider the writ petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable policy. 3 Despite the aforesaid judicial direction, the respondent authorities did not take any steps to process or decide the writ petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. Consequently, the writ petitioner was compelled to submit a detailed representation dated 15.12.2021 requesting consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the respondent authorities, while acting upon the writ 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 writ petitioner duly submitted all the requisite documents vide letter dated 12.07.2022. Subsequently, vide letter dated 26.05.2023, the writ 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 writ 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 writ petitioner, having 4 no alternative efficacious remedy available, preferred WPS No. 4769/2023, however, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same vide order dated 13.02.2026. Hence this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a manifest error in law in failing to appreciate that under the applicable compassionate appointment policy, an adopted son is not excluded from consideration and, in fact, is entitled to be considered subject to proof of valid adoption in accordance with law. It is contended that the appellant ought to have been afforded a fair and adequate opportunity to establish the legality and validity of his adoption, instead of his claim being rejected at the threshold on an erroneous and narrow interpretation of the policy. Further, it is urged that the respondent authorities have mechanically rejected the appellant’s application on the untenable ground that an adopted son is ineligible for compassionate appointment, which is contrary to the express provisions and object of the policy, rendering the impugned action arbitrary and unsustainable. Learned counsel emphasizes that the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief and ensure sustenance of the bereaved family of the deceased employee, and in the present case, after the demise of the appellant’s adoptive father, who was the sole breadwinner, the appellant and his family members have been left in a state of financial distress and hardship, thereby necessitating a liberal and purposive interpretation of the policy. It is further submitted that denial of compassionate appointment in such circumstances defeats 5 the very object and spirit of the scheme and results in grave injustice to the appellant. Lastly, it is contended that the respondent authorities, being instrumentalities of the State, are under a constitutional obligation to act in a fair, reasonable, non-arbitrary, and non-discriminatory manner, and the impugned rejection order, being contrary to these settled principles, is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition upon a detailed consideration of the factual matrix and the governing legal principles, holding that the core issue for determination was whether the petitioner, claiming to be the adopted son of an unmarried and issueless deceased employee, could claim entitlement to compassionate appointment contrary to the express provisions of the State policy. The learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the writ petitioner failed to establish a valid adoption in accordance with law, inasmuch as no cogent or legally admissible evidence such as a registered deed of adoption, proof of adoption 6 ceremony, or any contemporaneous public document was placed on record, and reliance on nomination, will, and succession certificate was held to be insufficient to confer any legal status or right for compassionate appointment. It has further been held that nomination merely facilitates disbursement of retiral dues and does not determine eligibility for service benefits, while a succession certificate is limited to realization of debts and securities and does not establish legal heirship for the purposes of service jurisprudence. The learned Single Judge has also observed that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception to the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16, and therefore must be strictly governed by the applicable policy, which, in the present case, restricts eligibility in respect of an unmarried deceased employee only to specified relations such as unmarried brother or sister, excluding an adopted son from the zone of consideration. Placing reliance on settled law, including the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar and Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, it has been held that compassionate appointment must be strictly in accordance with policy and cannot be granted on equitable or sympathetic considerations or by expanding the scope of eligibility through judicial interpretation. The learned Single Judge has further taken note of the inordinate delay of approximately 15 years in seeking compassionate appointment, observing that such appointment is intended to alleviate immediate financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a deferred benefit. It has also been clarified that the order passed in the succession proceedings directing 7 consideration of the claim “in accordance with policy” does not create any enforceable right in favour of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, finding that the impugned rejection order is reasoned, lawful, and free from arbitrariness or perversity, the learned Single Judge has held that no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of merit. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet