1 2025:CGHC:37086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1096 of 2021  Murlimanohar Sahu S/o Late Ishwar Lal Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Panchsheel Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Energy Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Danganiya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Office Deputy Managing Director, (Human Resources) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Raipur, Qt. No. C/8-11 (First Floor), Danganiya Parishar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Engineer In Chief (Human Resources) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Executive Director (Sub Cente-Sanchar And Sandharan) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Superintending Engineer (Testing And Transmission) Circle, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7. Executive Engineer, Sub Centre Division Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Bhilai District Bhilai Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ/ or writs/order/ or orders / to quashed the letter / order dated 07.08.2020 (Annexure P/1), issued by the respondent departments, and grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner in place of his father on any suitable post or further be pleased to direct the respondents authorities, to enquired the voluntary retirement application made by the Late Ishwar Lal Sahu, and consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment again, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, namely Ishwar Lal Sahu, was working on the post of Testing Supervisor Grade II under the respondents; he died on 11.07.2014. He would further submit that the application for compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner on 24.06.2020. He would also submit that the father of the petitioner had voluntarily retired from services on 31.12.2011, and the application was also moved to inquire into the issue, as no such option was submitted by the father of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. He would contend that the respondent authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 07.08.2020. He would further contend that the application of the petitioner was referred to the various authorities, and it was moved within the prescribed limitation period, even though the same has been rejected without sufficient cause. He would pray 3 to quash the order Annexure P/1 dated 07.08.2020. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Perusal of the documents would show that the father of the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement, and it was accepted by the department on 31.12.2011, though the petitioner has disputed this fact, but the said order has not been assailed either by the father of the petitioner or the petitioner before appropriate forum, thus, the said order attained finality. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 11.07.2014, and thereafter, the application for compassionate appointment was moved. 6. As the date of retirement is prior to the date of death, no case is made out for the grant of compassionate appointment; therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the respondent authorities dated 07.08.2020. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant