Reserved on – 10/03/2025 Pronounce on - 09/06/2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 1793 of 2016 Trilok Kumar Sahu, S/o. Late Shri M.L. Sahu, aged about 21 Years, R/o Near Office Of Electricity Gurur, Beside Of Jhayan Joyti School Gurur, Post And Thana Gurur District – Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. C S P D C L, Through Its Chairman, Regd. Office At Engery Info Tech Centre, Daganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd, Through Its Director General Manager H R D Regd Office At Energy Info Tech Centre, Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd., Through Its Deputy General Manager Maharashtra Regd Office At Energy Info Tech Centre, Danganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents Cause Title is taken from CIS system __________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the following relief:- (10.1) Thát, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the letter dated 30.01.2015 passed by the respondent no.3.; (10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the Case of the petitioner for Compassionate appointment in view of the order passed by this Hon'ble court as well as order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on the ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.09 17:15:33 +0530 -2- basis of the policy dated 30.01.1997.; (10.3) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father was working as Assistant Engineer at M.P. Electricity Board (before reorganization of Chhattisgarh) and died in harness on 18/03/2000. He submits thereafter an application was made for compassionate appointment by mother of the petitioner in the month of June, 2000 at that time petitioner was aged about 06 years (minor). He further submits that the case of the mother of the petitioner was not considered and decided by the respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner became major in the year, 2014, thereafter a joint application was made by the petitioner and her mother on 20/11/2014 (Annexure - P/3) which was rejected by the impugned order dated 30/01/2015 (Annexure - P/5) indicating therein there is no provision for compassionate appointment in the policy of the respondent. Annexure P/5 which is under challenge before this Court. He submits that identical issues has come-up before this Court in WPS No. 3525/2004 and this Court vide it’s order dated 07/07/2006 directed the respondent therein to consider the case of the petitioner therein in light of the policy dated 31/01/1997. He submits that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the Policy dated 30/01/1997 was in force. On 01/01/2000 the State of Madhya Pradesh was bifurcated into the State of Chhattisgarh & State of M.P. and the then M.P.E.B. was also been bifurcated. The assets and liability of the MPEB has distributed among the successor Electricity Boards of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Since the petitioner was working in the geographical region of the respondents, they were bound by the Policy dated 30/01/1997 and against the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 3525/2004, the respondent had preferred Special Leave to Appeal No. 19197/2006 was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide it’s order dated 26/08/2014, therefore, the impugned order Annexure P/5 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Policy date 30/01/1997. -3- 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that at present successor Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board came into being after the bifurcation of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and as such the Policy dated 30/01/1997 was not applicable with the respondents. She further submits that there is a long delay in preferred the application. As such no Policy was prevailing the case of the petitioner cannot considered. She further submits that the application of the mother of the petitioner was sent to MPEB for consideration. She placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin reported in (2003) 7 SCC 511 and Tinku Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in Civil Appeal No. 8540/2024 reported in 2024 INSC 867 and the judgment passed by this Court in WA No. 343/2019 in case of Vijay kumar Vastrakar Vs. Chhattisgarh state Power Destribution Company Limited vide order dated 04/10/2019. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended documents. 5. There is no dispute that the father of the petitioner died in harness while working in erstwhile MPEB. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of death of his father, he was aged about 06 years. It is also the case of the petitioner that her mother moved an application for compassionate appointment and the application was within time. The application of his mother was not considered. On attaining majority with consent of his mother, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the respondents vide letter/order dated 30/01/2015 (Annexure P/5). 6. A perusal of Annexure P/5 indicates that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that as per policy of the respondents for compassionate appointment there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground for the dependents of employee who died before formation of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board. On this sole ground, the application was rejected. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in WP No. 3255/2004 order dated 07.07.2006. In this case, this Court dealt with issue of consideration of application for compassionate -4- appointment of the dependent of employee who died prior to formation of CSEB. This Court while allowing the writ petition observed as under:- “11. It is also an admitted position that the father of the petitioner was the employee of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electriclty Board and on account of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out w.p.f. 01/11/2000 and thereafter the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board was also bifurcated w.e.f. 15/11/2000. As per the provisions of sub-sectlon (4) of Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 the assets and liabilities and employees of undivided Board were to be distributed among the MPEB and the CSEB. Vide order dated 6n January 204, the Government of India, Ministry of Power, issued an order in which It has been mentioned that representatives of both the State agreed in a meeting taken by Secretary, Power on 20th March 2003 that the division of employess would be in line with policy adopted for divison of employees of Madhya Pradesh Government. In Para 2, it has been mentioned that the mater has been Considered and in partial modification of provisional order dated 12th April 2001 so far as relating to the division of emplovees it has been decided finally to divide the posts and employees on the lines followed by DOPT for allocation of posts and employees of the State Government of "erstwhile Madhya Pradesh for making allocation of posts and persons to the successor Electricity Board of MPEB on the principle that posts relatable to territorlal jurisdiction of a successor State may be allotted to respective- State and similarly employees belonging to such s State. territorial cadres being allocated to concerned State and only dividing the remaining posts and employees between the two States, the Government of India has decided to appoint a three members Committee, Therefore, w.e.f. 15/11/2000 the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board was bifurcated and on this principle the employees of MPEB who were working in the territory of newly created Chhatisgarh are to be allocated to the successor Chattisgarh State Elecricity Board that is the employees who were working before that date in the State of Chhattisgarh came to the share of the CSEB and the employees who were working in the State of Madhya Pradesh came to the share of the MPEB. As the father of the petitioner was working in the territorial jurisdiction of the CSEB, therefore, petitioner's liability of compassionate appointment -5- lies on the shoulder of the CSEB and the CSEB is the only appropriate Board where the petitioner was entitled for compassionate appointment. The application for Compassionate appointment was made within time and at that time the policy for compassionate appointment in existing was dated 30/01/1997. Accordingly, the respondent - CSEB is duty bound to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the policy dated 30/01/1997 and in this case the policy dated 28/-2/2004 cannot be made applicable.” 8. As submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner, against such order SLP filed by respondent was also dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that identical issue has also come-up for consideration before this Court in WPS No. 360/2015 and connected cases. This Court disposed of the writ petitions and observed as under :-  “The petitioners shall submit fresh representations within a period of one month, along with copies of the earlier applications filed by each of them and supporting documents before the Manager, HRD, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Daganiya District Raipur.  On such representations being filed, the respondents shall decide the same strictly in accordance with the policy dated 30.1.1997.  It is made clear that while deciding the representations, the respondents would be at liberty to take into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions as also the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.588/2013.” 9. The case of the petitioner cannot be said to be different from the cases cited above. Therefore, the impugned letter/order dated 30/01/2015 (Annexure P/5) is hereby set aside. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents with due respect do not help in the given facts and circumstances of the case. In -6- those cases, the compassionate appointment was denied on the ground of delay. In the case in hand, the denial of compassionate appointment is not on the ground of absence of provision in the policy of compassionate appointment for the dependent of employees who died prior to formation of CSEB. The denial of compassionate appointment is on the ground of delay. Therefore, the respondents cannot be take the ground of delay particularly when it is not mentioned in the impugned order/letter (Annexure P/5). The respondents can be permitted to defend the impugned order/letter (Annexure P/5) on the ground mentioned in it and not beyond it. 10. As a fall out of above discussion, the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment and if found suitable in other respect, pass appropriate order. 11. Thus, writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish