1 2025:CGHC:13571-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 195 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sulekha Bai Wd/o Late Gend Ram Rajak Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Parsada, Post Office Tifra, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Electricity, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Deputy Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer (O And M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Durga Bai Wd/o Late Gend Ram Rajak Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Panitanki Ashok Nagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21. 03.2025 1. Heard on Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/ State. 2 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 21.01.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the WPS No. 1895 of 2017 ( Smt. Sulekha Bai Vs. State of C.G. & Ors.) with the following prayer:- “(a) The Hon' ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant Writ Appeal filed under Section 2 Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Courts (Appeal To Division Bench) Act, 2006. (b) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1895 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble High Court (Annexure A/1), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. (c) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to re-consider the claim of appellant for grant of appointment on compassionate ground by considering the financial condition and need factor of the appellant to get compassionate appointment. (d) Any other relief, which may deemed fit in favour of appellant including cost of litigation, may also be awarded in favour of appellant.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No. 3 Executive Engineer (O&M), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilapur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/ writ appellant on 31.01.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on 29.03.2017 on the ground of limitation while taking note of the Circular bearing No. 01-04/PD-6/2478 dated 30.07.2013. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2017, the writ appellant/ petitioner filed WPS No. 1895 of 2017 before the learned Single Judge and vide impugned order dated 21.01.2025, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed in WPS No. 1895 of 2017 with the aforesaid prayers. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that immediately after the death of her husband, the petitioner/ writ appellant approached the respondent authorities for release of admissible dues and for grant of compassionate appointment, but she was directed by the authority for bringing succession certificate, therefore the appellant applied for issuance of succession certificate and after obtaining the same, the appellant again approached the authority for grant of compassionate appointment, but her claim was erroneously and arbitrarily rejected only on the ground that her claim is belated. It is further submitted that according to compromise arrived between the appellant and Smt Durga Bai (respondent no. 4), pension is payable to the said respondent no. 4 and thus there is no source of income of the appellant and the appellant is nowhere gainfully employed, therefore the appellant and her children are facing great difficulties to run livelihood. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse and erroneous, hence liable to be quashed/ set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ State has submitted that the petitioner/ writ appellant seeking her appointment on compassionate ground was much beyond the prescribed period of 3 years under the Circular bearing No. 01-04/PD-6/2478 dated 30.07.2013 has, therefore, the authority concerned rightly been rejected the same. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1895/2017 as well as the documents annexed with the case. 7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, the learned Single Judge has observed that:- “From perusal of the record, it appears that one Gend Ram Rajak, who was performing his duty in Chhattisgarh Electricity Department as Lineman, Grade-II, was died on 15/09/2009 and upon his sad demise, the petitioner -Smt Sulekha Bai, while claiming to be his legally wedded wife, has moved an 4 application under Section 372 of the Act, 1923, seeking grant of succession certificate with regard to her entitlement in relation to the amount, which was payable to said Gend Ram Rajak, while impleading one Durga Bai, alleged to have been the first wife of said Gend Ram Rajak. The said application was submitted before the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur, where, the same was registered as Succession Case No.11/2010 and, vide order dated 30/01/2015, the same was rejected and being aggrieved with the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Court, where, a compromise has been arrived at between them, i.e. petitioner - Smt. Sulekha Bai and said Durga Bai, before the Lok Adalat and after considering the compromise made between them, entitlement with regard to the disputed amount payable to said Gend Ram Rajak, was directed to be apportioned in equal share vide its order dated 10/10/2015 (Annexure P-3). The relevant observations made therein at paragraphs 3 and 4 read as under :- "3- ्ቚस्तुतु राजीनामा आवे दना के संबंध मा अपीलाቕኍ ቅ቏ ० 1 ቦኍमातु संला खा बंई आ०सं०-1 एवे उ्ቈरावेद ቅ቏माके-1 ቦኍमातु दቇኋ# बंई आ०सं०-1 के शपीቕኍ पी%वे#के केቕኍना ला खाबं्ቍ किकेया ቇኋया जिजीसंमा संቌኍቇኋण ना व्या्ሹ किकेया है/ किके स्वे० ቇኋदरामा राजीके के0 मा1त्या के पीश्चातु उसंके किवेभाቇኋ किवेቕ኎तु माडला मा द याके जीमा राकिश 4,03,759/- अपीलाቕኍቇኋण एवे उ्ቈरावेद ቅ቏माके 1,4,5,6,7 एवे 8 के माध्या बंराबंरा बंराबंरा किवेभाजिजीतु किकेया जीवे । तुቕኍ किवेቕ኎तु किवेभाቇኋ सं ्ቚ्቎ पीशना उ्ቈरावेद ቅ቏माके-1 दቇኋ#बंई एवे अनाकेम्पी किनायाकि्ሹ अपीलाቕኍ ቅ቏माके- । संला खा बंई ्ቚ्቎ केरा ቇኋ। उभाया पीቌኍ ना स्वे च्छापी%वे#के किबंना किकेसं दबंवे एवे ्ቚला>भाना के राजीनामा आवे दना अनासंरा राजीनामा केरा जिलाया है/। अपीलाቕኍቇኋण ቛኋरा ्ቚस्तुतु अपीला खारिराजी किकेया जीया । 4- उभाया पीቌኍA के माध्या राजीनामा किबंना किकेसं दबंवे ्ቚला>भाना एवे स्वे च्छापी%वे#के किकेया जीना ्ቚतुतु है>तु है/। किवेवेकिदतु राकिश के संबंध मा ्ቚस्तुतु राजीनामा आवे दना स्वेकेरा केरातु हैBया आद किशतु किकेया जीतु है/ किके स्वे० ቇኋदरामा के0 मा1त्या पी’pk तु किवेቕ኎तु किवेभाቇኋ सं उसं द याके राकिश 4,03,759/- ( चारा लाखा तुना हैजीरा संतु संC उनासंठ रूपीया ) अपीलाቕኍቇኋण एवे उ्ቈरावेद ቅ቏माके 1,4,5,6,7 एवे 8 के माध्या बंराबंरा बंराबंरा किवेभाजिजीतु किकेया जीना है तु उ्ቈराजिधकेरा ्ቚमाण पी्ቔ जीरा किकेया जीवे । अपीलाቕኍቇኋण ቛኋरा ्ቚस्तुतु किवेकिवेध व्यावेहैरा अपीला राजीनामा के आधरा पीरा खारिराजी किकेया जीतु है/।" 6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph 3, it appears that although by virtue of the said compromise, the petitioner would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, while said Durga Bai would be entitled to avail the pensionary benefits, but in the aforesaid order, the Court had only directed for apportionment of the disputed amount in equal share amongst his (Gend Ram Rajak) heirs, as reflected from aforesaid paragraph 4. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dispute was pending before the said Court with regard to appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Be that as it may, after disposal of the said application filed under Section 372 of the Act, 1923, an application was made by 5 the petitioner on 31/01/2017 (Annexure P-5) before the concerned respondent authorities seeking her appointment on compassionate ground. The Policy/Circular, which was in existence at the particular point of time, when said Gend Ram Rajak died on 15/09/2009, was the Circular dated 30/07/2013 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited (CSPHCL) and according to it, an application was required to be made within a period of 3 years from the date of death of the concerned employee. Since the application made on 31/01/2017 by the petitioner seeking her appointment on compassionate ground, was much beyond the prescribed period of 3 years, therefore, the concerned respondent authorities, while taking note of the said Circular, have not committed any illegality in rejecting her claim, so as to call for any interference in this petition.” 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost (S) Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.22 10:41:54 +0530