1 2026:CGHC:24338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4533 of 2026 Sanita Bai Kosle W/o Late Basant Kumar Kosle Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Amadad, Police Station- Rajgamar, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, New Delhi 2. General Manager Sipat Super Thermal Power Station (Ntpc), Post Ujjwal Nagar, Sipat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 17/06/2026 Heard. 1. The present petition has been filed for following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider and finally decide the petitioner's JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.06.18 17:38:30 +0530 2 pending dated application compassionate appointment 21.03.2026 (Annexure P/4) within a stipulated time frame. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner's application after affording due consideration to all relevant facts and documents submitted by the petitioner. 10.3 Grant any other relief, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband, namely, Basant Kumar Kosle, was working under the contractor firm A.K. Construction engaged at NTPC. She submits that the petitioner's husband died on 13.06.2023 while in service. It is further submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment, however, the same has not yet been decided by the concerned authorities. She, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner's husband was not a regular employee of the NTPC but was working as a contractual employee under a contractor firm, namely, A.K. Construction. He further draws attention of this Court to the application filed by the petitioner herself (Annexure P-4), wherein it has been specifically stated that her husband was working on contractual 3 basis. He submits that compassionate appointment is not admissible to the dependents of contractual employees and, therefore, the petitioner has no enforceable right to claim compassionate appointment. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the documents placed on record, particularly Annexure P-4, it is evident that the petitioner's husband was working as a contractual employee under a private contractor and was not holding any regular post under the NTPC. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and can be granted only in accordance with the applicable scheme or policy. Since the petitioner's husband was admittedly a contractual employee, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment. In absence of any statutory provision or policy extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of contractual employees, no direction as sought by the petitioner can be issued by this Court. 6. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti