Adopted son ineligible for compassionate appointment where state policy limits eligibility to specified biological relations.

The appellant is the alleged adopted son of Late Shri Deepak Kumar Sindhi, a Peon who died in harness on 01.06.2006

Upon attaining majority, the appellant sought compassionate appointment and a succession certificate. A Civil Court in 2013 directed the respondents to release retiral benefits and "consider" the claim for compassionate appointment as per policy

The respondents rejected the application on 09.05.2023, stating that under the State’s 2013 Policy, an adopted son of an unmarried employee is ineligible

The appellant challenged this via W.P.(S) No. 4769/2023, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 13.02.2026

The appellant filed this writ appeal asserting that the policy should be interpreted liberally to include adopted sons

1. Whether an adopted son of an unmarried deceased employee is eligible for compassionate appointment under the prevailing State Policy

2. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a delay of approximately 15 years from the date of the employee's death

3. Whether judicial directions to "consider" a claim in accordance with policy create a vested right to appointment

The Court applied the Compassionate Appointment Policy of the State of Chhattisgarh dated 14.06.2013, which restricts eligibility for unmarried deceased employees to specific relations (unmarried brothers/sisters)

It relied on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, establishing that compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 and cannot be claimed as a vested right or a source of recruitment

Further, it cited State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, affirming that such appointments must strictly adhere to the policy and are intended to provide immediate relief from financial crisis, not as a deferred benefit

The Court found that the appellant failed to provide legally admissible evidence of a valid adoption, such as a registered deed or proof of ceremony, noting that succession certificates and nominations only facilitate debt recovery and retiral dues but do not establish legal heirship for service benefits

The Court highlights that the state policy specifically excludes adopted sons from the zone of consideration for unmarried employees

Regarding the 15-year delay, the Court reasoned that the primary objective of the scheme—alleviating immediate financial distress—is defeated when the claim is treated as a "deferred benefit"

It further clarified that the Civil Court's 2013 direction to "consider" the claim did not mandate an appointment but only a review within the bounds of the existing policy

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, holding that there were no palpable infirmities in the Single Judge’s order. No costs were awarded