1 CGHC010186782020 2026:CGHC:30906 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3394 of 2020 1 - Smt. Pushpa Anand Rao Wd/o Late Shri Anand Rao Aged About 52 Years R/o Ews- 1501, Housing Board Bhilai Power House, Pili Pani Tanki, Near Parul Dairy, District- Durg, (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Raipur, District- Raipur, (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Raipur, District- Raipur, (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintending Engineer (Civil Circle) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bhilai, District- Durg, (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Engineer 400 Kb Sub-Station Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bhilai, District- Durg, (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate SB – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 21/07/2026 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 01/03/2016 (Annexure P/8) by which her application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s husband namely Anand Rao died during his service period on 02/11/1996 and her application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner’s husband was an employee of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB) and they have have not been arrayed as a party/respondent in this writ petition, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 3 5. A careful perusal of the order impugned dated 01/03/2016 (Annexure P/8) would show that petitioner’s husband died on 02/11/1996 and the application for compassionate appointment has been filed by the petitioner on 25/05/2015 i.e. with a delay of 19 years and as per the circular No. 9 dated 30/01/1997 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, it has clearly been mentioned in clause No. 6 that application for seeking compassionate appointment has to be filed within one year from the date of death of the deceased employee and any application filed thereafter, would not be considered at all. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, the application filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 01/03/2016 (Annexure P/8) on the ground of delay as granting compassionate appointment after 30 years from the date of death would be wholly unreasonable. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet