1 2025:CGHC:41211 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2059 of 2022 • Lalita Sahu W/o Bed Mudund Sahu Aged About 37 Years D/o Late Bhekh Ram Sahu. R/o Qr. No.25, Suman Colony, Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Through - The Chairman, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Superintending Engineer (Circle) Gudhiyari, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Fool Chowk, Naya Para Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None, in two rounds. For Respondents : None, in two rounds. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14. 08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that his elder brother, namely, Teman Lal Sahu is already in Government service. The rejection was based on the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2018 dated 11.04.2018 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited. 2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication are as follows:- SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.18 17:18:33 +0530 2 (a) The petitioner’s father, Late Shri Bhekh Ram Sahu, was working as a Line Assistant Grade II in the Office of Junior Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Center Siliyari, District Raipur. Unfortunately, he passed away while in service on 14.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 12.06.2019 along with relevant documents. (b) The said application was considered by respondent No. 3, and it was noted that his elder brother, namely, Teman Lal Sahu is already in government service. Respondent No. 3 rejected the application moved by the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that, according to the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2018, if one of the family members is already in government service, the other dependents of the deceased servant would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 3. Perusal of the order impugned would make it clear that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 in accordance with the prevailing policy of the Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited. After the death of the petitioner’s father, she submitted an application for compassionate appointment before respondent No. 3. Subsequently, respondent No. 3, in light of the clause 6 (1) of Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2018(for short Policy, 2018) dated 11.04.2018, rejected the application moved by the petitioner and held that son of Late Shri BhekhRam Sahu has already in service on the post of Assistant Grade II in the company. 4. The clause 6 (1) of Policy, 2018 is reproduced herein-below :- 3 6(1) यदि दिवंगत का र्मिका का परिवं से यदि का डिका 5 उल्ले खित श्रे णी का काई व्यक्ति!त/ सेस्य का र्मिका का डि#ध# का प%वं& से ही ज्य शा से# / का न्द्री,य अका / अर्द्ध&शा सेका/य से वं / स्टे टे प1वं का पडि#य2 का/ से वं ही त ऐसे परिवं से डिकासे का भी अ#5का प डि#य5क्ति!त का/ प त्रत #ही7 हीग। 5. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the brother of the petitioner is already in government service; therefore, according to clause 6(1) of the policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. 6. In light of the above-discussion, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 03.01.2022 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant