[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Swapnil Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1211 of 2023
AVINASH
SHARMA Judgment Reserved On : 20.02.2026.
Digitally signed
by AVINASH Judgment Delivered On : 09.04.2026.
SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.13
20:05:00 +0530
Swapnil Tiwari S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Mishra Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward
No. 09, Itwari Bazar, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 491881.
... Petitioner.
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And
Rural Development, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisarh
492002.
2 - Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur
C.G. 492001.
3 - Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Rajnandgaon C.G. 491881.
... Respondents.
For Petitioner : Shri Ashish Pandey appears on behalf of Shri
Vivek Chopda, Advocates.
For State/Respondents : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. Petitioner by way of this Writ Petition has called in question the order dated
23.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 whereby,
application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment due to
death of his mother namely Mrinalini Mishra (for short "deceased
employee") has been dismissed.
2. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ
quashing the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the
respondent state authorities.
10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ
directing the respondent state authorities to grant the
petitioner compassionate appointment within such time frame
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the facts & circumstances of case.
10.4 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
3. Case as projected by the petitioner is like that he is the adopted son of Late
Mrs. Mrinalini Mishra and prior to that a proud citizen of India and having
thus granted all the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of
India. It is submitted that the petitioner has been adopted by Late Smt.
Mrinalini Mishra on 15.08.2000 as per the custom prevailing in their caste
and thereafter in the year 2008 a formal affidavit has been executed
between the parties affirming that the adoption has been made lawfully and
the same was then recorded in the service records of the petitioner's
mother in the year 2008 itself and there is no dispute with regard to the
adoption of the petitioner from any of the parties. However as per the
requirement of law on 03.04.2018 a registered deed of adoption has been
made and duly registered as per law. It is submitted that the petitioner's
mother Late Mrs. Mrinalini Mishra was posted as Assistant Grade-3 in the
Rural Engineering Services, Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon C.G. and she
had unblemished carrier all along without there being any complaint or
misconduct on her part but due to medical reasons, the petitioner's mother
on 04.11.2016 applied for Voluntary retirement of her services. The
petitioner says and submit that even before the decision on the VRS
Application could be taken by the respondent Authority the said Smt.
Mrinalini on 09.01.2017 gave an application for revocation of the Voluntary
retirement of her services opted by her as her medical issues were treated
and she was fit to work but the same was not acted upon by the then
Executive Engineer and the same was forwarded to the office of Chief
Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. after a
delay of 30 months i.e., on 06.05.2019. The petitioner says and submits
that even before any action could have been taken upon the application for
voluntary retirement an application as aforesaid for revocation was made
by Smt. Mrinalini however ignoring the said application which was kept
pending for almost 30 months the same was acted upon after inordinate
delay by the respondent state authorities and vide their Order dated
11.09.2017 accepted the said application for retirement. It is submitted that
the petitioner's mother expired on 08.05.2018 thus, the application for
revocation of retirement of the petitioner's mother was forwarded by the
Executive Engineer after her death i.e, on 06.05.2019 and hence, no
actions whatsoever was taken by the respondent state authorities on the
said application till the death of the petitioner's mother. It is submitted that
the Executive Engineer on 07.06.2021 directed the father of the petitioner
to submit information for providing pension or compassionate appointment
it was further observed by the Executive Engineer that in the event the
information as sought for is not received by them then the entire
responsibility would be upon the petitioner's father. Here it would be just
and proper to state that no specific information was sought under the said
letter as to what details are required yet an intimidation was given to the
petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioner on 26.08.2021 has filed an
application seeking compassionate appointment on behalf of his mother
who died in service (as the revocation was not acted upon), before the
Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering services, Rajnandgaon, C.G. That
on 01.09.2021 the Executive Engineer wrote to the office of the Chief
Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Civil Lines, Raipur seeking
directions in the matter of compassionate appointment as there has been a
delay of 30 months in forwarding the application of revocation of VRS and
meanwhile the applicant died. That on 26.10.2021 the Executive Engineer
again wrote to the office of the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services,
Civil Lines, Raipur stating the reasons as to why such a delay has occurred
and why the revocation of the VRS could not be done and also sought
clarification in the matter of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. It
is submitted that the Chief Engineer, Raipur wrote to the Executive
Engineer on 16.11.2021 asking under which rule the Compassionate
appointment would be made as no actions whatsoever was taken by the
concerned official regarding revocation of the VRS of Late Mrs. Mrinalini
Mishra as the letter was only forwarded to him after her death. It is
submitted that from the abovementioned factual matrix it becomes crystal
clear that the irresponsible attitude of the officials of the respondent state
authorities has led to violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner
and her deceased mother and other family members. Hence, the petitioner
approached this Hon'ble Court by filing a Writ Petition (S) No. 4215 of 2022
seeking directions to the respondent authorities to decide the application of
the petitioner. That the petition of the petitioner was disposed off by this
Hon'ble Court on 24.06.2022 wherein a direction was given to the
respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner within
120 days. It is submitted that the petitioner on 09.07.2022 made a
representation to the respondent authorities requesting them to act upon
the directions of this Hon'ble Court and to decide his application for
compassionate appointment. That the respondent authority on 03.10.2022
replied to the representation of the petitioner wherein the respondent
authority stated that only a competent Court of law can decide upon the
subject of adoption and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court lacks
decision on the subject of adoption and thus, directed the petitioner to
furnish certified copy of the order of the competent court wherein the
adoption of the petitioner is decided. It is submitted that the petitioner after
receiving such an arbitrary reply from the respondent authorities replied to
the letter dated 03.10.2022 of the respondent authorities on 02.11.2022
wherein the petitioner attached the copy of the registered adoption deed as
well as the copy of the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by this Hon'ble
Court. That the respondent authorities on 23.12.2022 passed an order
wherein the respondent authorities rejected the application of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment on the grounds that the mother of the
petitioner was granted voluntary retirement and after that she passed away
and thus, compassionate appointment cannot be granted. It is submitted
that the respondent authorities have kept on changing reasons for denial of
the rightful claims of the petitioner which is nothing but illegal and arbitrary
usage of the powers which the respondent authorities are holding. It is
submitted that the illegal and arbitrary actions of the respondent authorities
was proved on various occasions which are as follows: A. When the
application for revocation of VRS was withheld unjustifiably for a period of
30 months which was admitted by the Executive Engineer in its letter dated
01.09.2021 and 26.10.2021. (Annexure-P/9 & Annexure-P/10). B. When
the application for revocation of VRS was received after the death of the
petitioner's mother which was admitted by the Chief Engineer in its letter
dated 16.11.2021. (Annexure-P/11). C. When no actions whatsoever was
taken upon the application for compassionate appointment dated
26.08.2021 by the respondent authorities. D. When the respondent
authorities firstly denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that only a
competent Court of law can decide upon the subject of adoption and the
order passed by this Hon'ble Court lacks decision on the subject of
adoption. E. When the respondent authorities again on 23.12.2022 denied
the claim of the petitioner by creating a new ground that Compassionate
appointment cannot be granted when the employee dies after grant of VRS
even when the respondent authorities very well know that the application
was submitted by the petitioner's mother for revocation of VRS
applications. It is most pertinent to mention here that the respondent
authorities somehow wants to reject the claim of the petitioner for the
reasons best known to them and the same fact becomes crystal clear as
the respondent authorities have every time taken a new ground to reject
the claim of the petitioner and have thus, acted illegally and arbitrarily in
granting the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that vide their order dated
23.12.2022 the respondent authorities for the very first time have
mentioned two letters of the petitioner's mother wherein she accepted the
VRS and basing on these letters the VRS was granted and it is pertinent to
mention here that these letters were never mentioned before by the
respondent authorities. Also, the respondent herein as per their own
admissions were unable to forward and act upon the application for
revocation of VRS for over 30 months and the same could only be received
in the office of Chief Engineer after the death of petitioner's mother but now
the respondent authorities have acted against their usual behavior and
lethargic attitude and have now found/created two letters of the petitioner's
mother wherein she accepted the VRS and the same is nothing but an after
thought when the petitioner herein filed the Writ petition before this Hon'ble
Court to somehow deny the appointment of the petitioner. It is submitted
that the petitioner is a married man and has two children as also has an old
aged father who is dependent on him for his daily needs, thus the petitioner
is in dire need of the job which he is entitled to being the adopted son of
late Mrs. Mrinalini Mishra. Petitioner has made several requests to the
respondent state authorities but the same has fell into deaf ears of the
respondent state authorities and the petitioner is struggling every day for
sustaining lives of his family only because of the lethargic attitude adopted
by few people holding responsible posts at the Rural Engineering Services.
It is submitted that present is not the case where there has been a fault on
behalf of the petitioner but the respondent stare authorities for the reasons
best known to them have made mockery of the lives of the petitioner and
his family and grave injustice has been done by the few holding powers. It
is also submitted that the initially the deceased mother of the petitioner
have been made run from pillar to post to get her VRS revoked and even
the revocation was not done and now the petitioner has been treated the
same for getting a job by way of compassionate appointment for which he
has all the rights. This is nothing but an arm-twisting method of the officials
of the respondent state authorities in order to gain unlawful benefits from
the poor and needy family of the petitioner. Thus, the instant petition is
being filed against the respondent authorities since the act of the
respondent authorities is materially illegal and arbitrary and in breach of the
petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for grant of
compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that
deceased employee sought voluntary retirement by making application on
04.11.2016 and the deceased employee passed away on 08.05.2018.
Hence, after 04.11.2016, the deceased employee was no more in services
of the respondents and as such, claim of the petitioner was not accepted
which is not in accordance with law since application for grant of voluntary
retirement was kept pending for about 1 year and during that period, on
09.01.2017, deceased employee filed an application for revocation of VRS
application dated 04.11.2016, however on 11.09.2017, the respondent
authorities passed an order granting VRS to the deceased employee. The
fact remains that the deceased employee has filed an application for
revocation of the VRS application on 09.01.2017, however, without
considering the said application, order dated 11.09.2017 has been passed
by which, deceased employee has been granted VRS. Therefore, the
reasons assigned in the impugned order for rejection of application of
compassionate appointment that on the death of deceased employee on
08.05.2018, the deceased employee was no more in services of the
respondents is wholly illegal and arbitrary.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent authorities have
assigned reasons for not acting upon the deceased employee's revocation
application because deceased employee gave a subsequent application for
VRS but earlier no such reason was given.
6. The lackadiasical approach adopted by the respondent authorities has
ended the petitioner and his family in grave hardship because if the
respondent authorities would have done their job in a proper manner by
forwarding the revocation letter as early as possible then the illegality of
acting upon the VRS application and grant of VRS to the deceased
employee would not have happened.
7. Learned counsel submits that it has been admitted by the respondent
authorities that deceased employee applied for revocation of VRS
application and they even accepted there was delay of about 30 months on
their part in forwarding the said revocation application.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
dependent upon the deceased employee and as the deceased employee
had filed application for revocation of VRS application and since on
07.06.2021, the concerned Executive Engineer wrote letter to the father of
the petitioner regarding grant of service dues in respect of deceased
employee and compassionate appointment, as such, petitioner deserves to
get compassionate appointment.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance in the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shambhu Murari Sinha vs.
Project & Development India Ltd. and Another {(2002) 3 SCC 437},
stating that when the application for revocation of voluntary retirement is
pending for consideration, the concerned employee cannot be treated to be
voluntary retired unless and until the said application has been decided.
10.Further, he would place reliance in the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed in the matter of J. N. Srivastava v. Union of India and
Another {(1998) 9 SCC 559}, Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Private
Limited v. Official Liquidator of Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited (IN
LIQUIDATION) and Others {(2018) 10} SCC 707}, Balbir Kaur and
Another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others {(2000) 6 SCC
493}, State of Maharashtra vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar {1989
Supp (1) SCC 393}.
11. Considering the backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for
grant of reliefs as sought by the petitioner.
12. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that deceased
employee had moved an application for grant of voluntary retirement which
was considered on 11.09.2017, before the death of deceased employee
which took place on 08.05.2018. As such, on the date of death of deceased
employee, deceased employee (mother of the petitioner) was no more in
service, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek compassionate appointment
when his mother herself chose to voluntarily retire.
13.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available with the petition.
14.The word "died in harness" refers to a government servant or employee
who passes away while still in active service prior to retirement. This status
triggers benefit like compassionate appointment under specific rules. It is
designed to mitigate immediate financial hardship for the deceased
employee's family.
15.It is well settled that only those cases may be considered for grant of
appointment on compassionate basis where an employee dies in harness
as the sole purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to provide
immediate relief and succor to the penurious family in distress.
Appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but
is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress
for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee
from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment
is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is
not to provide employment. (See: Haryana State Electricity Board and
Anr. v. Hakim Singh1; State of Manipur v. Md. Rajaodin 2 and State of J
and K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir3).
16. As observed and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of
decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an
exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on
compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in
harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on
compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict
scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family,
1 (1997) 8 SCC 85
2 AIR 2003 SCW 4339
3 2006 (5) SCC 766
the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and
the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have
a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore,
appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of
the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an
appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an
appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation
and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders
shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be
more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified. {see:
Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar
Union, (2022) 10 SCC 172 }. Relevant paragraph 16 reads as under:-
16. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the
employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be
contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of
decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as
an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The
appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the
death of an employee in harness without any kind of security
whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not
automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various
parameters including the financial position of the family, the
economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee
and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can
claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate
grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds
cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their
superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is
permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment
and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation
and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the
outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment
though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or
more qualified. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the
respondent that the appointment is not on compassionate grounds
but the same be called as varas hakka cannot be accepted. Even
if the same be called as varas hakka the same is not supported by
any scheme and even the same also can be said to be violative of
Article 14 as well as Article 15 of the Constitution of India.
17. In the present case, the deceased employee (mother of the petitioner) died
on 08.05.2018 after her voluntary retirement on 11.09.2017 which means
that she was not in services when she died, as such, this Court after
considering the overall fact situation of the case and the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its catena of decisions, is of the
view that impugned order dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) by which claim
of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected,
does not warrant interference by this Court.
18.Case laws cited by counsel for the petitioner are factually different and are
of no help to the petitioner in the present case.
19.In the result, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash
The date when the The date when the The date when the judgment is
judgment is reserved judgment is uploaded on the website
pronounced
Operative Full
20.02.2026 09.04.2026 ------ 13.04.2026
