1 2026:CGHC:19608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6649 of 2022 * - Ranju Kumar Banjare S/o Late Kaushal Prasad Banjare Aged About 37 Years R/o C.S.E.B. Coloney, Surkhi Road, Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Daganiya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer (Civil) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha and Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 04.05.2022 Annexure P-1, in the interest of justice. 10.(ii)That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to held Clause 6(1) of policy dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure P-2) as void and inoperative being arbitrary, discriminatory and consider the petitioner for appointment on the compassionate basis, in the interest of justice or direct the respondent authority to consider and grant compassionate appointment as per judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.S. No. 5119/2021 within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. 10(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.29 20:04:08 +0530 2 2. Mr. Shashi Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner who was working on the post of Line Attendant died in harness on 27.04.2021. He would contend that the petitioner, who is son of the employee of the respondents, applied for grant of compassionate appointment and said application has been rejected vide order dated 04.05.2022 on the ground that his brother is already in service with the company. He would contend that the brother of the petitioner was appointed with the company prior to death of his father and he was residing separately and he never financially assisted the family. He would submit that the respondent authorities ought to have conducted an inquiry with regard to financial condition of the petitioner. He would further contend that the petitioner has challenged Clause 6A of the policy for grant of compassionate appointment as same is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the policy for compassionate appointment framed by the State applies in toto with the respondents company. He would contend that the brother of the petitioner was working with the respondents company, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. He would further contend that Clause 6A of the policy of the State Government was challenged in WPS No. 561/2022, parties being Rachana Darwade vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., before Division Bench and said petition was dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2022. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has challenged the Clause 6A of the policy for grant of compassionate appointment. In WPS No. 561/2022, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held in paragraph no. 41 is reproduced herein below:- “41. Reiterating the conclusion in Neeraj Kumar Uke vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (WA No.324/2021) and bearing in mind that compassionate appointment must be governed by terms on which the State lays down the policy offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee, the question posed by the learned Single Judge is answered by observing that this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the State Government to hold an 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 members of the deceased government servant when a claim is made by another member of the family for compassionate appointment as the same would amount to rewriting the terms of the policy. 6. It is a well-settled principle of law that applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. The Courts cannot direct appointments contrary to the policy in force. 7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 (Annexure P-1). Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti