1 (WPS No. 1877 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:5267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1877 of 2016 1 - Usha Bai W/o Late Ramayan Singh Patel, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kanharpuri, Post Kareli, P. S. And Tahsil Dhamdha, Civil And Revenue Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh Presently Residing R/o Village Sukhrikala, Post Ghotha, P. S. Bori, Tahsil Dhamdha, Civil And Revenue Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its Managing Director Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Holding Company Maryadit, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent :- Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 28.01.2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning order dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure P/1), ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.01.31 11:13:38 +0530 2 (WPS No. 1877 of 2016) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authority is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment by recording a finding perverse to the records and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the deceased government servant died in harness on 19.08.2000 and his son/petitioner’s husband – Ramayan Singh filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 13.04.2006, which was returned/rejected on 06.06.2006 (Annexure P/3), as such, the second application for grant of compassionate appointment made by the daughter-in-law of the deceased government servant would not be maintainable and, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 3 (WPS No. 1877 of 2016) 5. Admittedly, the deceased government servant’s son – Ramayan Singh made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 13.04.2006, which was rejected/returned on 06.06.2006 (Annexure P/3), holding that since his father died on 19.08.2000 i.e. before the formation of State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, as per prevalent rules, he is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Again, the second application for grant of compassionate appointment has been made by the daughter-in-law of the deceased government servant on 15.06.2015 i.e. after a delay of 15 years, which has rightly been rejected by the respondent authority holding that as per prevalent circular No.9 dated 30.01.1997, only the wife, son or unmarried daughter of the deceased government servant is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment and the petitioner herein being the daughter- in-law of the deceased government servant is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Also, since the first application for grant of compassionate appointment had already been rejected, therefore, the second application for the said purpose could not be entertained. 6. Furthermore, it needs no authority for settled legal position that compassionate appointment is not an 4 (WPS No. 1877 of 2016) alternative source of employment. The only object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the family of the deceased employee so that the family may not suffer agony of starvation due to sudden death of sole bread earner of the family. In the instant case, since the deceased government servant died on 19.08.2000 and the petitioner has been able to survive till date and has maintained her family during the said period, therefore, at this stage, no purpose would be served in granting compassionate appointment. The very object of granting compassionate appointment no longer subsists because the petitioner and her family have been able to survive for 25 long years. 7. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!