1 2025:CGHC:39783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5171 of 2021 * - Ravi Verma S/o Late Shri Narendra Kumar Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o Abhinav Sishu Mandir School, Chote Uttarmuda Raigarh,District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1 - C. S. E. B. Through Its Chairman, C.G. State Power Generation Company Limited, Daganiya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - C.S.E.B., Through Its Managing Director C S P G C L, Daganiya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief General Manager Madhya Pradesh State Power Management Company Limited ( H R ) Head Office Sakti Bhawan Rampur, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 4 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Generation Company Limited, Through Its Chief Engineer (Production), Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sewti Sahu D/o Late Sadhuram Sahu Aged About 35 Years Working In Office Of E E Meter Relay Testing Division C S P T C L Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Aged About 15 Years At The Time Of Death Of Her Father), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - T. Simhachalam S/o Late Shri T. Ramarao Aged About 45 Years Working In The Office Of E H T Maintenance Bhilai Division C S P T C L District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPS No. 5329 of 2021 1 - Satish Dewangan S/o Late Shri Bodhram Dewangan Aged About 40 Years R/o Koshtapara, Gurunanak School Road District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - C. S. E. B. Through Its Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Daganiya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.25 11:58:00 +0530 2 2 - C. S. E. B. Through Its Managing Director C S P G C L, Daganiya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief General Manager Madhya Pradesh State Power Management Company Limited (H R) Head Office Shakti Bhawan Rampur, District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 4 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Generation Company Limited Through Its Chief Engineer (Producation), Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sewti Sahu D/o Late Sadhuram Sahu Aged About 35 Years Working In Office Of E E Meter Relay Testing Division C S P T C L Bhilai District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. Aged About 15 Years At The Time Of Death Of Her Father)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - T. Simhachalam S/o Late Shri T. Ramarao Aged About 45 Years Working In The Office Of E H T Maintenance Bhilai Division C S P T C L, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : None appeared, even in two rounds Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08/08/2025 1. The petitioners have filed these petitions claiming therein compassionate appointment. 2. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the father of petitioner- Ravi Verma and petitioner- Satish Dewangan, who were working as Assistant Grade-III under the respondents/CSEB, Raigarh, died in harness on 24.04.1997. He would further submit that at that time, age of both the petitioners were 16 & 17 years and they moved application(s) for compassionate appointment on 12.09.1997 and 15.07.1997 and the same have been refused by the respondent authorities vide order dated 21.03.1998 on the ground that they have not attainted the age of majority. Thereafter, the petitioners moved applications/representations for compassionate appointment on 05.02.2016 which were rejected by the respondent 3 authorities vide orders/letters dated 04.10.2016 stating that the application(s) for compassionate appointment have not been moved by the petitioners within a period of one year and at that time, they were not attained the age of majority, therefore, pursuant to orders passed in writ petitions i.e. WPS No. 43/2016 dated 11.01.2016 and WPS No. 108/2016 dated 14.01.2016, which were filed by them, they are not entitled for compassionate appointment. He would contend that the date of birth of petitioner- Ravi Verma is 26.06.1982 and petitioner- Satish Dewangan is 26.06.1981 and these petitions were filed in the year 2021, at that time their age were about 39 and 40 years and the finding recorded in the order dated 14.10.2016 is erroneous. He would pray to set aside the orders and direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 4. Admittedly, the present petitions filed in the year 2021 and in the year 2021, the age of the petitioners were 39 & 40 years; the claim of the petitioners was rejected in the year 2016 and the petitioners have already survived for more than 09-10 years when their claim was rejected on 14.10.2016 and they survived more than 26-27 years after the death of their father. 5. It is a well settled principle of law that if a dependent has survived for a considerable period, therefore, there is no need to provide him compassionate appointment as it is back door entry and it is in contravention of the constitutional mandate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with this issue in the matter of State of 4 Maharashtra and Another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, AIR Online 2022 SC 471 held in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 as under:- “7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee. 8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable.” 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Other Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774, held in paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under:- 5 “:7. In our view there is more than one impediment in the way of the respondent. 8. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same. 9. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant clause of the new policy which reads as under:- “The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the date of issue of instructions. The cases, where compassionate employment has not been given due to discontinuance of the earlier policy since 4/2002, shall also be considered and requisite relief, in lieu compassionate employment, shall be granted as per above policy instructions.” 7. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to take a different view, thus these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti