1 2025:CGHC:147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 508 of 2020 Ajay Kumar Yadav S/o Late Sampatlal Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Presently Resident At Village Post Hardi (S) Tahsil Nawagarh District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through The General Manager Dagniya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Executive Director (Bilaspur Aria) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Tifra Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Superintendence Engineer (S / S) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Tifra Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Executive Engineer (S /s) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Pendra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Ashwani Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board (02/01/2025) Following reliefs have been sought for by the petitioner in this petition:- 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court pleased to direct the respondents to consider and grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court pleased to issue writ nature of certiorari set-aside the impugned order 28.11.2017 passed by the respondents 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Facts of the case in brief are that father of the petitioner who was working as Line Attendant Grade-III under the respondents died in harness on 18.07.2013 leaving behind his wife and three children as dependents. After the death deceased employee an application (Annexure P-2) was submitted by the petitioner on 30.08.2013 for compassionate appointment before respondent No.4 with all requisite documents. It is also the case of the petitioner that contrary claim for compassionate appointment was made by two wives of the deceased employee, and the respondents vide letter dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure P-3) directed them as also one Smt. Dhan Bai Yadav to obtain succession certificate and the further proceedings in the matter can be drawn only thereafter. From the documents on record it appears that application for grant of succession certificate under Section 372(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ( henceforth the “ISA”) by Smt. Samund Bai and children including the petitioner was allowed on 16.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) and the succession certificate was issued in their favour. Thereafter the petitioner being the son of the deceased employee made an application for grant of compassionate appointment along with the succession certificate dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure P-4 and Annexure R-1). The said application was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 28.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) stating that the application was not in accordance with the terms of clause 5 of the policy of compassionate appointment dated 28.02.2004. 3. Return has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the same stand that the application made by the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the policy for compassionate appointment. Return also says that the the impugned order was passed in the year 2017 whereas the petition has been filed in the year 2020 without there being any satisfactory explanation for such delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter/order rejecting the 3 application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is bad in law as the respondents themselves asked the mother of the petitioner and other dependents of the deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment to obtain the succession certificate in the year 2013, thereafter succession certificate was obtained by the petitioner along with other successors on 16.07.2015, and a fresh application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner on 04.08.2015. Therefore, there was no delay as such and the application could not have been rejected on the ground of delay, and being so the order impugned (Annexure P-1) may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that as per clause 5 of the policy for compassionate appointment dated 28.02.2004 the application should have been made by the petitioner within one year from the date of death of the employee, but admittedly in this case it was made on 14.08.2015 and as such beyond the period of limitation of one year. He therefore submits that there is no illegality in the order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment. He submits that the application of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2017 whereas the petition was filed in the year 2020, and therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment and being so the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Admittedly, father of the petitioner died on 18.07.2013 in harness. Factum of making first application on 30.08.2013 (Annexure P-2) is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that respondents directed the mother of the petitioner and other successors as well to obtain succession certificate in order to appreciate the claim for compassionate appointment. Succession certificate was issued on 16.07.2015 and thereafter an application was made on 04.08.2015 which was kept pending for almost two years and then it was rejected on 28.11.2017 on the ground that it was made beyond the period of one year as prescribed in the policy referred to above. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, rejection of the application for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner cannot sustain as admittedly on the direction of the 4 respondents the petitioner and other successors applied for grant of succession certificate. Now the question whether the petition suffers from delay and laches also does not hold water as it is a question of livelihood. This apart, it has to be seen that the respondents themselves took two years to decide the application which was rejected on the technical ground. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court order/letter impugned (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment expeditiously and take a decision thereon within a period of 30 days from the date of recept of copy of this order. 9. petition is thus allowed with the observations made herein above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.01.06 12:34:18 +0530