1 / 9 CGHC010223142024 2026:CGHC:27558 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3882 of 2024 Smt. Nandinee Sen W/o Late Shri Chetanlal Sen Aged About 41 Years R/o Sen Nivas, Teacher Colony, Kota Raipur Ward No. 20, Ramkrishna Paramhansh, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Kota, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Through Its Executive Director, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Deputy General Manager (HR), Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Dagniya, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Dagniya, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Ghanshyam Sen S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Sen, Aged About 45 Years Present Address C/o S.S. Ramsir, Farasgaron, District Kondagaon, Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.13 14:42:15 +0530 2 / 9 Bastar (C.G.) Permanent Address Behind Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth, Teacher Colony, Near Nigam Garden, Kota, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Nemin Sen D/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Sen, Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth, Teacher Colony, Near Nigam Garden, Kota, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Resp. No.5 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 03/07/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “i. That, the respondents may kindly be directed by writ of mandamus to forthwith produce the entire records, for perusal before this Hon'ble Court. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside in the order dated 13-06-2024 in no 01- 01/anu.niyu/3495 as Annexure P/1. iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment with all consequential benefits. iv. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide suitable employment to the petitioner depending upon her educational qualification and other eligibility. v. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 3 / 9 vi. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father-in- law was employed as a Civil Operator Grade-I in the office of the Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Dangniya, Raipur. During the course of his service, he died in harness on 12.04.2021. Petitioner submitted applications dated 07.05.2021 and 30.07.2021 seeking compassionate appointment along with all the requisite documents stating that she is widowed daughter- in-law. However, her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 without due consideration of the grounds raised in her applications and in disregard of the Circular dated 11.04.2018 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd. governing grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent family members of deceased employee. He submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, contrary to the applicable policy/circular, and therefore liable to be set aside and respondent – Electricity Company may be directed to provide suitable employment to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4/Electricity Company opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that respondent-Electricity Company is a statutory body having its own duly approved compassionate appointment scheme. Petitioner has not placed on record correct facts. After receipt of application submitted for compassionate appointment in the year 2021 it was processed. Application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded along 4 / 9 with application of another son of deceased namely Ghanshyam Sen. Since there were rival claims therefore the family details of the petitioner were called. Upon examining the case of the petitioner along with other claimants claiming compassionate appointment, application submitted by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that one of the family member of the deceased- employee is already in government service, taking note of Clause 6 of the Circular dated 11th April 2018 issued by respondent- Electricity Company. There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by respondent- Electricity Company rejecting application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, who was serving under the respondent-Company and died in harness on 12.04.2021. Grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent of deceased employee working in the respondent-Power Company is governed by the Circular dated 11th April 2018 (filed as Annexure P-11 in the writ petition). A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected in terms of Clause 6(1) of the Circular dated 11.04.2018 issued by the respondent-Company, which reads as under: “6. vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh vik«krk %& (1) ;fn fnoaxr dkfeZd ds ifjokj esa ls ;fn dafMdk& 5 esa mYysf[kr Js.kh dk dksbZ 5 / 9 O;fDr@lnL; dkfeZd ds fu/ku ds iwoZ ls gh jkT; 'kklu@dsUnzh; ljdkj@v)Z’kkldh; lsok@LVsV ikWoj daifu;kas dh lsok esa gks rks ,sls ifjokj ls fdlh dks Hkh vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugh gkssxh .” x x x x x x 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that no member of the family, falling within the category specified therein, shall be entitled to compassionate appointment if any other eligible member of the family was already in Government service prior to the death of the deceased employee. The impugned order further records that on the date of death of the deceased employee, one of the family members, namely, Bhupendra Singh, was already employed in Government service. This factual position has not been disputed. 7. Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.334/2021 (Neeraj Kumar Uke v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, decided on 10-12-2021), while dismissing the appeal seeking compassionate appointment, has held as under:- “16. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only on the basis of scheme applicable for such appointment. When the scheme itself provides that no appointment shall be granted on compassionate ground, if any of the family members is in government service, no appointment can be claimed on the ground that the family member in government service is not giving any financial assistance. No obligation is cast upon the government under the 6 / 9 scheme to find out as to whether such employee is providing any financial assistance to the other members of the family.” 8. Application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the guidelines framed by the respondent- Company. Courts would not rewrite the terms of the guidelines as it is in exclusive domain of respondent- Company. The issue as to whether this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is empowered to direct the concerned authority of respondent- Company to hold an enquiry qua the dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant, who is already in Govt. service, to the dependent of the deceased government servant claiming compassionate appointment is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by this Court. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr Vs. Parkash Chand reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285 has observed thus : “10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Teneja, SBI v. Somvir Singh, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, Union of 7 / 9 India v. Shashank Goswami, SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar.]” 10. In the present case, the policy governing compassionate appointment formulated by the respondent - Electricity Company expressly excludes the names of family members where one of the family member of the deceased employee is already in service. 11. In the case of State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Umesh Thakur (Writi Appeal No.236 of 2022, decided on 21.06.2023), Full Bench of this Court while answering reference to the question “when any dependent family member of deceased employee is already in Government service, in that circumstances whether any other member of the family would be deprived for employment on compassionate ground, without consideration of dependency of family on such Government employee”, taking note of the decisions rendered by Division Benches of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Uke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.334/2021 decided on 10.12.2021), State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey and Anr. (Writ Appeal No.91 of 2022, decided on 23.02.2022), reference answered by another Division Bench in case of Purendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (WPS No.6689 of 2018 decided on 12.01.2022) and in the light of principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh and Anr Vs. Prakash Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285 and Central Bank of India Vs. Nitin (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873), held as under :- “When one of the family members of the 8 / 9 deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars and prohibits the consideration of other dependent of the deceased Government servant for appointment on compassionate ground, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not direct for holding enquiry qua dependency/financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant who is already in Government service to the other family member of the deceased Government servant when a claim is made by other member of the family for compassionate appointment, as it would amount to rephrasing /rewording of the terms of the applicable scheme / policy for compassionate appointment, as such, such enquiry is totally barred.” 12. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench, which has followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and having regard to Clause 6(1) of the Circular dated 11.04.2018 issued by the respondent-Company, which specifically disentitles a claimant from compassionate appointment where another eligible family member is already in Government service, this Court finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in rejecting application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of its own Policy for grant of compassionate appointment, warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9 / 9 13. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/ Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen