Vikram Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:16050

¶3

AFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6149 of 2021

¶6

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

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Ground Water Survey, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. The Commissioner Chhattisgarh Ground Water Board, Pariyawas Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.), Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Ground Water Board Raipur DistrictRaipur (C.G.), Chhattisgarh

¶12

4. Assistant Ground Water Facility District Ground Water Survey Unit Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.), Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner	:	Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate along with
		Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Amandeep Singh Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

2

¶18

8.4.2026

¶19

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

D. Any other relief may kindly be pleased granted as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

E. Cost of the petition.

¶25

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.

¶26

3

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

1 . 2025 (8) Supreme 446

¶31

4

¶32

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.

¶33

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 :-

¶34

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.

¶35

5

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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).

¶39

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶40

A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.08 16:46:20 +0530

Vikram Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Budhia Auto Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aakash Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nehru Lal Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S. Budhia Auto, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gajendra Prasad Jaiswal Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Himanshu Agro Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner