1/ 7 (WPS No. 6574 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:1703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 6574 OF 2016 1. Smt. Shakuntala Bai, W/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Meshram, aged about 47 years, Khothidkhana Raod, Ward No.40, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Anju Washnik, D/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Meshram, aged about 33 years, R/o House No.479, Ward No.40, Basantpur Gali No.6, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Ku. Preeti, D/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Meshram, aged about 24 years, R/o Khothidkhana Raod, Ward No. 40, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Deputy General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Superintendent Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2/ 7 (WPS No. 6574 of 2016) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents 2 to 5 :- Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Single Bench ] Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board (08-01-2025) 1. By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the legality, validity and correctness of the Order dated 30.1.2015 whereby the application of Petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by Respondent No.3. 2. The husband of Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioners No.2 & 3 died in harness on 21.11.1996 on account of electrocution, pursuant to which Petitioner No.1 made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 24.8.1998. It is the case of Petitioners that since the application of Petitioner No.1 for grant of compassionate appointment was not decided by the respondent authorities, the Petitioner No.2 submitted her application claiming compassionate appointment on 28.11.2014 with the consent of Petitioners No.1 and 3, 3/ 7 (WPS No. 6574 of 2016) which has been rejected by Respondent No.3 by impugned Order dated 30.1.2015. 3. The answering Respondents No. 2 to 5 filed their return stating that Respondent No.3 is absolutely justified in passing the impugned Order dated 30.1.2015 rejecting the claim of Petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment, holding that the death of deceased employee had occurred on 21.11.1996 and as per the compassionate appointment rules applicable to the Electricity Companies, there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of employees/officers who died prior to the formation of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, thereby rejected the claim of Petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and no appropriate writ or direction may be issued directing grant of compassionate appointment to one of the Petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned Order cannot be passed by Respondent No.3 with retrospective effect and since the Petitioner No.2 possesses all requisite qualifications, her case for grant of compassionate appointment should be considered as per the prevailing policy of the Respondent-Electricity 4/ 7 (WPS No. 6574 of 2016) Company. Thus, he prayed that the impugned Order is liable to be dismissed and the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed directing the Respondent authorities to consider the case of Petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment. 5. Learned Counsel for the answering Respondents No.2 to 5 submits that the deceased employee i.e. husband of Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioners No.2 & 3 had died in harness on 21.11.1996 on account of electrocution in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and after the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out with effect from 1.11.2000 on account of reorganization of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board was constituted and after its dissolution different Electricity Companies have been formulated one of which is Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited and that there is no provision in the existing policy dated 30.7.2013 of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited to grant compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased employees/officers who died in harness in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and therefore the case of Petitioner No.2 was not considered and even her application 5/ 7 (WPS No. 6574 of 2016) claiming compassionate appointment was filed belatedly after more than 28 years from the date of death of her father and in between she has also got married on 13.5.2007. As such, the Writ Petition has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the husband of Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioners No.2 & 3 had died in harness on 21.11.1996 in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. The new State of Chhattisgarh was carved out with effect from 1.11.2000. There is no record in the present case to show that action was taken by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board on the application filed by Petitioner No.1 on 24.8.1998 for grant of compassionate appointment. It is also admitted position on record that after reorganization of the erstwhile Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, different electricity companies, including the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, have been incorporated and the policy of compassionate appointment was revised and amended from time to time and the policy which is prevailing as of now is the policy dated 30.7.2013 6/ 7 (WPS No. 6574 of 2016) (Annexure R/2-1). It has been clearly stated by the Respondent-Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited that there is no provision in the present policy dated 30.7.2013 for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the employees/officers who died while working in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. Therefore, in absence of any provision in the present policy for grant of compassionate to the dependents of the employees/officers who died in harness in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, the application of Petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected. Even otherwise, the application of Petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment is hopelessly barred by limitation as the death of her father had occurred on 21.11.1996 and she had made her application claiming compassionate appointment on 28.11.2014 after more than 28 years from the date of death of her father, which shows that the family of deceased employee has been able to maintain and sustain themselves during all this period and in between she has also got married on 13.5.2007 which also makes her ineligible for compassionate appointment as per policy dated 30.7.2013. 7/ 7 (WPS No. 6574 of 2016) 8. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge sharad SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.01.13 12:54:51 +0530