1 2025:CGHC:42565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1180 of 2022  Prasanjit Mandal S/o Shibu Chandra Mandal Aged About 28 Years R/o 20/5, 20 Block, Ward No.10, Mana Camp, Mana Bindrawangarh, Raipur, 492015 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Secl Through The General Manager (F) Chucha Ro, Baikaunthpur, District Korea (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner no.1 in accordance with law. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the maternal uncle of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.29 10:20:59 +0530 2 the petitioner, namely Asit Ranjan Sen, was working on the post of Senior Lineman under respondent No. 2/SECL and he died in harness on 17.10.2018. He would further submit that the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment before the authorities concerned, but till date, it has not been decided. He would contend that respondent No. 2 may be directed to decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate, would submit that the petitioner has not filed a copy of the application, and the applicable provision has also not been mentioned in the instant petition while claiming a compassionate appointment. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by respective advocates, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No. 2, and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the law, preferably within a period of 90 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant