Satish Kullu v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited

Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Adv. on behalf of Mr. N.K. Malviya, Adv. Ms. Ashtha Shukla, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 7-7-2026. 1 The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 2 "a. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to suitably direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. b. Any other relief, order/direction may kindly be issued as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father, late Sylvestor Kullu, who was working as a Line Attendant (Class-II) in the then Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘MPEB’) passed away on 22.12.1995. On his demise, his widow, Smt. Patirasiya Kullu (the petitioner's mother), submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 10.05.1996—well within one year. However, the respondents rejected her application on the ground that she was over-age for such appointment. It is further contended that on the date of his father's death, the petitioner was a minor aged 6 years, 8 months, and 22 days. Upon attaining age of majority, he applied for compassionate appointment on 02.09.2016 (Annexure P-5), which was rejected on the sole ground that the application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, learned counsel submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 3 Respondents have filed reply. Referring to its reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per Clause 6 of the Circular dated 30.01.1997 (forming part of Annexure R-1) issued 3 by the MPEB, an application for compassionate appointment must be filed within one year from the date of the employee's death. In the instant case, the application was filed by the petitioner after a lapse of more than 20 years. She further contended that since the family survived for over 20 years the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, cannot be considered after such a long period under the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court. It was also submitted that while compassionate appointments were previously granted under a 1990 Circular, a new Circular dated 30.01.1997 was subsequently issued by the erstwhile MPEB. Clause 11 of this new Circular explicitly dictates that all pending and future cases of compassionate appointment shall be decided in accordance with the Circular dated 30.01.1997; hence, the petitioner's case is strictly governed by it. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari [(2025) 5 SCC 712], and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 Admittedly, the petitioner's father was working as a Line Attendant (Class-II) in the then MPEB. His widow’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected as she crossed the prescribed age limit. The petitioner has now filed an application for compassionate appointment on 02.09.2016, which is after a lapse 4 of more than 20 years of death of his father. 6 As per Clause 6 of Circular No. 01-07/six/9 dated 30.01.1997 (forming part of Annexure R-1), issued by the MPEB, an application for compassionate appointment must be filed within one year from the date of the employee's death. At the time of his father's demise, the petitioner was a minor aged 6 years, 8 months, and 22 days. According to his date of birth (31.03.1989) recorded in the mark sheet of Class 10th Annexure P-4, the petitioner attained majority on 31.03.2007. However, he applied for compassionate appointment only on 02.09.2016—delayed by more than 8 years even after attaining majority. 7 Consequently, since the petitioner failed to apply within the stipulated period prescribed under the Circular (Annexure R-1), and slept over his rights for over 8 years after becoming a major, the impugned order rejecting his application for compassionate appointment does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Even otherwise, the petitioner's application was preferred nearly 20 years after the death of his father. 8 In the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after lapse of considerable time. In para 32, it has been held that :- “32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this 5 Court, the following principles emerge:

32.1. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

32.2. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

32.3. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It 6 is improper to keep such a case pending for years.

32.5. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source.” 9 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specifically that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment more than 20 years after his father's demise and over 8 years after attaining majority, this Court, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal (supra) and the Circular dated 30.01.1997 issued by the MPEB, is not inclined to interfere in the matter. 10 Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge pathak