1 CGHC010456192024 2026:CGHC:30748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 112 of 2025 Animesh Singh Tomar S/o Lt. Shri Ashok Singh Tomar Aged About 31 Years R/o Raja Chata Gali, Juniline Civil/ Revenue, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its Chairman, Regd. Office At Energy Info Tech Centre, Daganiya Raipur, C.G. 2. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Through Its Director General Manager (Hrd) Regd. Office At Energy Inf Tech Centre, Daganiya Raipur, C.G. 3. Deputy General Manager Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. Regd. Office At Energy Info Tech Centre, Daganiya Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 20.07.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure P-1), whereby JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.21 10:53:05 +0530 2 his claim for compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father, Late Shri Ashok Singh Tomar, who died in harness on 15.12.1994 while serving as Assistant Grade-II in the Divisional E.H.T. Office, has been rejected. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondents to consider his subsequent representation dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure P-4). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application/representation dated 09.10.2014 seeking compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 01.03.2016 solely on the ground of delay. He submits that thereafter the petitioner submitted a fresh representation dated 17.03.2016, specifically contending that immediately after the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner's mother had already submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 25.01.1995, but the same was never considered by the respondent authorities. It is, therefore, contended that the rejection of the petitioner's claim without considering the earlier application is arbitrary and the respondents ought to have considered the subsequent representation in accordance with law. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has neither placed on record nor produced any material to substantiate the assertion that his mother had submitted an application for compassionate 3 appointment on 25.01.1995. It is further submitted that the application dated 09.10.2014 was admittedly filed nearly two decades after the death of the employee and, therefore, the same was rightly rejected as being hopelessly barred by delay. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No. 1866 of 2015, which was disposed of on 14.05.2015 with a direction to consider his claim in the light of the decision rendered in WPS No. 363 of 2015 (Amit Rao v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's representation was duly considered and rejected by a reasoned order dated 01.03.2016 in accordance with the Circular dated 30.01.1997 issued by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, which stipulates that an application for compassionate appointment is required to be submitted within one year from the date of death of the employee. He, therefore, submits that no case for interference is made out. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father died in harness in the year 1994. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner himself submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment only on 09.10.2014, nearly twenty years after the death of the deceased employee. The said application was considered by the 4 competent authority and rejected by a reasoned order dated 01.03.2016 on the ground that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under the Circular dated 30.01.1997 issued by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, which provides that a claim for compassionate appointment is required to be made within one year from the date of death of the employee. 6. The contention of the petitioner that his mother had submitted an application on 25.01.1995 cannot be accepted, as no document or other material has been placed on record to substantiate the said assertion. Mere pleading, in the absence of any supporting material, is insufficient to dislodge the findings recorded by the competent authority. Moreover, pursuant to the earlier direction issued by this Court in WPS No. 1866 of 2015, the respondents have already considered the petitioner's claim and passed a speaking order rejecting the same. Once the petitioner's claim has been duly considered and rejected by a reasoned order, no direction can be issued for reconsideration of the very same claim on the basis of an unsubstantiated plea. 7. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of public employment and is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee facing sudden financial hardship. A claim raised after nearly two decades defeats the very object of the scheme and cannot be entertained. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality or perversity 5 in the order dated 01.03.2016 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti