ORDER : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this case is heard finally. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “(10.1) It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the present matter. (10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing the letter dated 25/08/2025 and 30.12.2025(Annexure P/1) and grant the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. (10.3) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to amend the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2018 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "CSPHCL") vide circular dated 11.04.2018 as per the existing OAD Circular, 2018 for grant of compassionate appointment which allows 5 years relaxation from the upper age limit with the maximum eligible age of 45 years in accordance with law. (10.4) Any other relief/ relief's which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased to be granted to the petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner was working on the post of Line Assistant Grade-II at JE Saragaon District- Raipur. While in service, he died on 16.04.2025 due to brain hemorrhage. Petitioner being dependent son of deceased employee applied for grant of compassionate appointment vide his application dated 30.05.2025 along with all relevant documents. However, vide order dated 25 th July 2025, his application was rejected assigning reason that petitioner is over aged and hence not eligible for grant of compassionate appointment. Referring to Circular dated 14.06.2013 issued by the General Administration Department (GAD), Govt. of Chhattisgarh which is Consolidated Revised Instructions on Compassionate Appointment – 2013, she submits the petitioner being OBC category candidate is entitled to get age relaxation of five years in upper age limit i.e. up to 45 years. Respondents – Electricity Company while issuing advertisement for direct recruitment have adopted and applied the age criteria as prescribed in GAD circular, however, while deciding petitioner’s case for grant of compassionate appointment, respondents have adopted contradictory and discriminatory approach by denying similar age relaxation seeking appointment on compassionate basis. 4. Respondents – Electricity Company while issuing advertisement for direct recruitment have adopted and applied the age criteria as prescribed in GAD circular, however, while deciding petitioner’s case for grant of compassionate appointment, respondents have adopted contradictory and discriminatory approach by denying similar age relaxation seeking appointment on compassionate basis. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 6/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. Referring to Clause -12 (2) (b) of the Circular dated 11 th April 2018 issued by the respondent- Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company, he submits that widower/son/daughter/ daughter-in-law/brother/sister of the deceased employee who has applied for grant of compassionate appointment, as the case may be, and belongs to SC/ST/OBC category, maximum upper age limit is prescribed as 40 years. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to OBC category and aged about 42 years, therefore, as per the Policy, he is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment and Circular issued by the GAD will not apply in granting compassionate appointment in the respondent- Company. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition. 6. Admittedly, petitioner is aged about 42 years and belongs to OBC category. He being dependent son of deceased employee applied for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected on the ground that petitioner is over-aged. 7. Grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent of deceased employee working in the respondent-Power Company is governed by the Circular dated 11 th April 2018 (filed as Annexure P-2 in the writ petition). Clause -12 of the Circular deals with age criteria for compassionate appointment, relevant part of which is extracted below for ready reference : 8. From perusal of the aforementioned clause of Circular issued by the respondent-Electricity Company with regard to grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee, it is crystal clear that for granting compassionate appointment to the candidates belonging to OBC category, there is maximum age limit of 40 years. Since compassionate appointment is an exceptional concession (not part of regular recruitment), employers normally decide the terms of the policy within the framework of applicable law. The Court cannot compel the employer to act contrary to its governing regulations. Since compassionate appointment is an exceptional concession (not part of regular recruitment), employers normally decide the terms of the policy within the framework of applicable law. The Court cannot compel the employer to act contrary to its governing regulations. The material placed on record by the petitioner does not indicate that the Circular issued by GAD, which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, expressly supersedes or overrides the independent service regulations/policy of statutory instructions or Corporation like Chhattisgarh Power Holding Company Limited. In absence of any specific statutory mandate extending the GAD circular to the Electricity Company for considering application for compassionate appointment, the same cannot be read into. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that while granting compassionate appointment, instead of adopting circular issued by the respondent- Electricity Company, Circular issued by the GAD ought to have been taken recourse to has no force and the same is hereby repelled. 9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent- Electricity Company while issuing advertisement for direct recruitment have themselves adopted and applied the age criteria as prescribed by GAD with regard to upper age limit is concerned, the policy of compassionate appointment and the process of new/fresh recruitment cannot be treated as one and the same because they are founded on entirely different objectives and principles. A compassionate appointment is a special provision made to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased or medically incapacitated employee, ensuring that the family is not left without a means of livelihood. It is an exception to the general rule of open competition and merit-based selection, and is granted on humanitarian grounds. In contrast, process of recruitment is a regular process governed by constitutional principles of equality and fairness, where appointments are made through transparent procedures, eligibility criteria, and competitive selection to ensure that the most suitable candidates are chosen. While compassionate appointment serves a social welfare purpose, new recruitment is aimed at maintaining administrative efficiency and equal opportunity, and the two process of appointment operates in distinct spheres and cannot be equated. 10. In case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Sharma (2007) 8 SCC 148 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy. 10. In case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Sharma (2007) 8 SCC 148 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy. 11.In case of General Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Anju Jain (2008) 8 SCC 475 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that appointment on compassionate ground which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment. 12. In case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Krishna Devi (2002) 10 SCC 246, it was held that compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions. 13. In case of Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi (2009) 11 SCC 453 , it was held that since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a side-door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation. 14. In case of SAIL v. Madhusudan Das (2008) 15 SCC 560 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the rules must be satisfied by all aspirants. 15. In State of Himachal Pradesh & another V. Prakash Chand reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that direction to consider application for compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased employee de hors policy is impermissible and observed thus:- "9 . The High Court has observed that the State should consider cases for appointment on compassionate basis by dealing with the applications submitted by sons, or as the case may be, daughters of deceased government employees, even though, one member of the family is engaged in the service of the Government or an autonomous Board or Corporation. This direction of the judgment of the High Court virtually amounts to a mandamus to the State Government to disregard the terms which have been stipulated in Para 5 (c) of its Policy dated 18- 1-1990. The Policy contains a limited exception which is available only to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks compassionate appointment even though one of the children of the deceased employee is gainfully employed with the State. The basis for this exception is to deal with cases where the widow is not being supported financially by her children. 10 . The Policy contains a limited exception which is available only to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks compassionate appointment even though one of the children of the deceased employee is gainfully employed with the State. The basis for this exception is to deal with cases where the widow is not being supported financially by her children. 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, (1994) 4 SCC 138 ; SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 ; Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Teneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 ; SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 ; Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 ; Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 ; SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739 ; and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 .] 11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has virtually rewritten the terms of the Policy and has issued a direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfil the terms of the Policy. This is impermissible." 16. In the given facts of the case and decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above, I am of the considered view that respondent-Electricity Company has not committed any 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. 17. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.