Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for 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. 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 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 adoptio