[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Vikram Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:16050
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6149 of 2021
Vikram Singh S/o Late Jaisingh Aged About 40 Years R/o Dhurva
Para, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ward No. 38 Village Dharampura,
Tehsil Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.), Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of
Ground Water Survey, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.), Chhattisgarh
2. The Commissioner Chhattisgarh Ground Water Board, Pariyawas
Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.),
Chhattisgarh
3. The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Ground Water Board Raipur
District- Raipur (C.G.), Chhattisgarh
4. Assistant Ground Water Facility District Ground Water Survey Unit
Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.), Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate along with
Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate
For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
8.4.2026
1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
A. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue the appropriate writ and quashed/set
aside the order dated 26.12.2020 (Annexure P-
1) by the authorities.
B. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for
the entire records pertaining to the case of the
petitioner from the respondent authorities for its
kind perusal.
C. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or
suitable direction to the respondents-authorities
to give compassionate appointment to the
petitioner on the post of his late father.
D. Any other relief may kindly be pleased
granted as it may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
E. Cost of the petition.
2) Facts of present case are that petitioner's father, namely, Jai
Singh who was working on the post of Chowkidar under
respondent-department went missing in year 2001 and was
declared dead by the competent Court on 4.1.2019. Thereafter,
petitioner moved application for grant of compassionate
appointment on 16.4.2019 which was rejected by Chief Engineer,
Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Water Resources Department vide
order dated 26.12.2020 on the ground that civil death of
petitioner's father was declared by the competent Court after the
scheduled date of retirement.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's father
who was a government servant went missing in year 2001 and
after expiry of seven years, he should have been treated as a
dead person, therefore the authority concerned committed error of
law while rejecting the application so moved by petitioner. He
contends that petitioner being the dependent of a government
servant who died in harness is eligible for grant of compassionate
appointment. He prays that a direction may be issued to
respondent authorities to give compassionate appointment
appointment to the petitioner.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per
service records, the petitioner's father was due to retire on
31.7.2017 whereas his civil death was declared by the competent
Court on 14.1.2019, therefore, the claim for grant of
compassionate appointment after date of retirement has not been
considered by the authority concerned. He has placed reliance on
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation
and Others Versus Lalita and Others1 passed in Civil Appeal
No. 14786 of 2024. He contends that this petition deserves to be
dismissed.
5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein above and
carefully perused the documents placed on record.
1. 2025 (8) Supreme 446
6) Admittedly, petitioner's father who was a government servant went
missing in year 2001 and his civil death was declared by the
competent Court on 14.1.2019. After declaration of civil death,
petitioner moved applications for grant of compassionate
appointment on 16.4.2019 and same was rejected by Chief
Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Water Resources
Department vide order dated 26.12.2020 on the ground that civil
death of petitioner's father was declared by the competent Court
after the scheduled date of retirement i.e. 31.7.2017.
7) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita (supra) held that
the question of the date or time of the death must be determined
on the basis of direct or circumstantial evidence, and not on mere
assumption or presumption. It has been further held that decree
of declaration of civil death only recognizes the fact that the
person is presumed to be dead after expiry of seven years of
disappearance, without fixing any precise date or time of death.
Relevant paragraph 7 is reproduced herein below :-
7. In LIC Vs. Anuradha¹, it has been laid down in
matters of civil death, the question of the date or time
of the death must be determined on the basis of
direct or circumstantial evidence, and not on mere
assumption or presumption. The burden to prove the
date or time of the death lies upon the person who
makes such an assertion of death. It has been
further clarified in the aforesaid case that the decree
of declaration of civil death only recognizes the fact
that the person is presumed to be dead after expiry
of seven years of disappearance, without fixing any
precise date or time of death.
8) In the present instance, the 'civil death' of the petitioner's father
was legally established only post-superannuation. Consequently,
the petitioner is precluded from seeking a compassionate
appointment, as the essential prerequisite, the demise of the
government servant while 'in harness', remains unsatisfied.
9) The very object of providing compassionate appointment is to
ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant time and
same has been achieved as the family has already survived for
such a long period. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
has ruled that compassionate appointment is a way to provide
immediate financial assistance to families who have experienced
sudden hardship, therefore, I do not find any good ground to
interfere into the matter.
10) In light of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal principles
established by the Apex Court, no case is made out for
interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby
dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
