1 2026:CGHC:10110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10039 of 2019 1 - Pyare Lal Sahu S/o Late Rupuram Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o- Block Colony, Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer (O And M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer (O And M) Zone Navapara Rajim, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Chhattisgarh. 2 5 - Smt. Ambika Sahu Office Assistant Grade-3, Under Executive Engineer (O And M), Zone Navapara Rajim, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For Respondents 1 - 4 : Dr. Veena Nair on behalf of Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocates For Respondent No. 5 :Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 26.02.2026 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner stating inter alia that her son namely Om Prakash Sahu, while working under the respondent Department, died in harness and in lieu of that, compassionate appointment has been granted to his wife i.e. respondent No. 5 Ambika Sahu by order dated 12/08/2014, however, now her daughter-in-law is not maintaining her which is contrary to the affidavit sworn by her on 01/09/2014. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the affidavit sworn by respondent No. 5 on 01/09/2014, she is not maintaining the petitioner i.e. her mother-in- law, therefore, the petitioner be granted maintenance. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the record. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that the competent authority has already granted appointment in favour of respondent No. 5 and if respondent No. 5 has sworn on affidavit to maintain the petitioner i.e. her mother-in-law, then the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available to her under law. 6. With the aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner, this writ petition stands disposed of. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet