1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7309 of 2018 1 - Smt. Vimla Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Balaram Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Behind Naveen School, Ward No.4, Tahsil And District - Balodabazar District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Corporation Limited A Successor Of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Through Its Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Superintending Engineer (Services) K.W. Extension, Cspdcl, Korba (West), District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sankhmitra Sahu D/o Late Balaram Sahu And W/o Sawant Kumar Sahu, Aged About 33 Years, Office Address Superintending Engineer (Services), K.W. Extension, Cspdcl, Korba (West), District - Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Shristhi Upadhyay, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Kumar Bhoi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner 2 from the respondent concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, may be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment dependent of the deceased employee by canceling the appointment of respondent No.3 made on compassionate ground. other 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent authorities to deduct 50% amount from the salary of respondent No.3 and pay the same to the petitioner so that she may lead her life with dignity and without any difficulty. 10.4 Cost of the proceedings. 10.5 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a widow of the late Balaram Sahu, who died in harness on 03.12.2007 while working on the post of ‘Line Man’ under respondents No.1 & 2. Respondent No.3 is the daughter of the deceased employee, who has been granted a compassionate appointment. Apart from respondent No.3, the deceased had three more daughters. The daughter of the petitioner, i.e. respondent No.3, applied for the compassionate appointment along with the consent letter given by other family members. Respondent No.3 had executed an affidavit on 30.05.2011 to the effect that if she is granted compassionate appointment, she would take care of other family members. 3. Respondent No.3 was appointed to the post of ‘Peon’ on a compassionate basis. Thereafter, her marriage was solemnized, and she left the house of the petitioner and also refused to maintain her. 3 4. The petitioner made a representation before the Welfare Officer, Korba, for the grant of half of the salary of respondent No.3. An application was moved by the petitioner on 06.09.2018 for cancellation of the appointment granted to respondent No.3 with a further prayer to grant a compassionate appointment to other dependents of the deceased employee. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an affidavit was sworn by respondent No. 3 to the effect that she would take care of other family members, but after the appointment and marriage, she left the house of the petitioner and also refused to assist financially. He would further submit that the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased employee, is entitled to lead her life with dignity, and thus, she would pray to allow the present petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Agrawal. They would submit that a compassionate appointment has already been granted to respondent No.3, and the claim of other dependents of the deceased employee cannot be considered according to the Policy. They would contend that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is a widow of the late Balaram Sahu, who died in harness on 03.12.2007, while working on the post of ‘Line Man’ under respondents No.1 & 2. Respondent No.3 is the daughter of the deceased employee, who has been granted compassionate appointment. According to the Policy, the compassionate appointment 4 has already been granted to respondent No.3; therefore, other dependents of the deceased employee have no right to claim a compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the relief sought by the petitioner in para 10.2 cannot be granted, and the appointment of respondent No.3 cannot be cancelled on this ground alone. 9. With regard to the deduction of 50% amount from the salary of respondent No.3, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the respondent authorities and the authorities concerned are directed to consider the representation so made by the petitioner. The petitioner may also take recourse to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha