1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6253 of 2021  Kuleshwar Kumar Deshmukh S/o Late Shri Kamal Narayan Deshmukh Aged About 43 Years Occupation Un-Employed, R/o Village And Post Chandkhuri, Thana Pulgaon, Civil And Revenue District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur, District - Raipur( C.G.) 2. The Chhhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its Director General Manager (Hrd), Daganiya, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Executive Director Human Resources Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Daganiya, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 29-07-2025 1) Petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure P-10). 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition, in the interest of justice. 2 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely Kamal Narayan Deshmukh, who was working on the post of Lineman, died in harness on 30.11.1997, and at that point of time, the petitioner was a minor. He further submits that the respondent department intimated the mother of the petitioner vide letter dated 04.01.2000 to the effect that her son may apply for compassionate appointment after attaining the majority. He contends that after attaining the majority, the petitioner moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment on 12.07.2003, but the same was not considered. He further contends that the petitioner, along with other similarly situated persons, filed a writ petition [WPS No. 637 of 2015] before this Court, wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation. He argues that pursuant to the order passed in WPS No. 637 of 2015, the petitioner moved a representation and the same has been rejected vide order dated 01.03.2016. He prays to set- aside the order impugned and allow this petition. 3) Heard. 4) Evidently, the father of petitioner, who was working on the post of Lineman under respondents, died in harness on 30.11.1997 and thereafter, in the year 1998, the mother of the petitioner submitted a letter stating that as she is an illiterate person, therefore, the claim of her son may be considered for appointment on compassionate basis, after he attains the majority. Thereafter, the petitioner, who was born on 12.07.1984, moved an application for compassionate appointment on 12.07.2003 after attaining the majority. Subsequently, the representation made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 01.03.2016 on the ground that the petitioner ought to have approached 3 the respondent authorities within a period of one year from the date of the death of the employee; thus, his claim is hit by delay and laches. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tinku vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024, has held that the policies are framed for a compassionate appointment with the object of granting relief to a family in distress and facing destitution. The purpose of such a policy is to give immediate succour to the family. It is further observed that the dependent attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father, and thus, the same has rightly been rejected by the respondent/State. Paragraphs 14, 15 & 16 are reproduced herein below:- “14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the general rule in favour of the family of the deceased employee. This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner. 15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family. When seen in this conspectus, three years as has been laid down from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority as per the 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right. 16. In the present case, as is apparent from the record, the Appellant attained 4 majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father. The claim, thus, has rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The decisions of the High Court vide the impugned judgments rejecting the claim of the Appellant thus, cannot be faulted with.” 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K., Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025, has held that in “hand-to-mouth” cases, a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted if at all other conditions are satisfied. It is further held that no appointment on compassionate grounds ought to be made as if it is a matter of course or right, being blissfully oblivious of the laudable object of any policy/scheme on this behalf. Paragraphs 29 & 30 are reproduced herein below:- “29. The second sub-issue pertains to the real objective sought to be achieved by offering compassionate appointment. We have noticed the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and construe such objectives as salutary for deciding any claim for compassionate appointment. The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in- harness cases appears to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of the employee, who was the only bread earner for the family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive. There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand-to- mouth” cases would include cases where 5 the family of the deceased is ‘below poverty line’ and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner. 30. The observation in Kunti Tiwary (supra) noted above seems to assume significance and we draw inspiration therefrom in making the observation that no appointment on compassionate ground ought to be made as if it is a matter of course or right, being blissfully oblivious of the laudable object of any policy/scheme in this behalf.” 7) In the present case, the father of the petitioner died on 30.11.1997, and at that time, the petitioner was a minor and his mother was illiterate. From the records, it is clear that the petitioner was born on 12.07.1984, he attained the majority on 12.07.2002, and he moved the application for the grant of compassionate appointment on 12.07.2003 for the first time and thereafter on 20.07.2011, 19.09.2014 and 29.09.2014. Later on, the petitioner filed WPS No. 637 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved a representation on 12.05.2015, which was rejected by the respondent authorities on the grounds of delay. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tinku (supra) has categorically held that the policies are framed for the compassionate appointment with the object of granting relief to a family in distress and facing destitution. In the present case, the petitioner has approached the authorities after a lapse of 18 years from the date of the death of the employee, and further, the petitioner has not impleaded the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board as a respondent, despite the fact 6 that his father was an employee of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board on the date of death. 9) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.31 17:29:07 +0530