Disposed

Sadanand Rajak v. The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2024WPS/1007/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition regarding compassionate appointment, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that despite the father's death in 1999 and the petitioner's 2008 application filing, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh representation. The respondents were directed to decide the claim within six weeks according to the relevant policy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file a fresh representation; respondents directed to decide the same within six weeks in accordance with the relevant policy.

Sadanand Rajak Vs The Chhattisgarh State Power… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:29623

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1007 of 2016

¶6

Sadanand Rajak S/o Late Shri Punaram Rajak, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Jaraudha Police Station Takhatpur Tahsil Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Managing Director Daganiya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶10

The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Through Its Director General Manager H R D Daganiya Raipur, District Raipur , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Executive Director, Human Resources, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Daganiya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

¶13

Digitally signed by A A ANNAJEE RAO ANNAJEE Date: (GOUTAM BHADURI, JUDGE) RAO 2024.08.09 16:55:50 +0530

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

07/08/2024

¶16

1. Admittedly, the father of petitioner namely Punaram Rajak who

¶17

was working as helper in the erst-while M.P. State Electricity Board died

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

in harness on 24.09.1999. At that time, the age of the petitioner was 20 years. The petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment which was forwarded to the Additional Secretary and when no communication was received till long, he filed application under RTI Act to furnish the information. Thereafter he was communicated by the Respondent Company vide Annexure P-2 that after formation of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, compassionate appointment has not been provided to the dependents of the deceased employees of the Board existing before formation of Chhattisgarh State, thereby representation of the petitioner came to be rejected.

¶20

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that similarly situated persons have filed WPS No. 360 of 2015 (Raja Ram Kosle Versus C.G. State Power Distribution Company Ltd) and other connected wherein this Court passed the order 08.04.2015 granting liberty to the petitioners to file representation and on such representations being filed, the respondent were directed to decide the same strictly in accordance with the policy dated 30.01.1997. The respondent was also given liberty to take into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions as also the law laid down by this Court in WA No. 588/2013. 3. The claim is resisted by the Respondents. According to the respondents, the benefit of the policy framed for compassionate appointment should not be extended to the dependents of employees who died on or before 15.11.2000 that is before formation of CSEB. It has been stated that the petitioner has submitted representation in the year 2008 (Annexure P-3) and though his father had died way back in the year 1999 and the petitioner since having been survived, the fact

¶21

3 / 3

¶22

was dormant, therefore, he cannot be considered for compassionate appointment.

¶23

4. Perusal of the document would show that the petitioner has filed application seeking compassionate appointment on 16.05.2008 (Annexure P-3) and though considerable time has elapsed but what is the outcome of it is not known. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submits that receipt of the said application is not available in the office of respondents, therefore, the petitioner may be directed to file a fresh representation. In view of such submission, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh representation to the respondents and on such representation being filed, the respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of 6 weeks strictly in accordance with the relevant policy.

¶24

5. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed off.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(GOUTAM BHADURI) JUDGE

¶27

Rao

Sadanand Rajak v. The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand Rajak v. The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Tandon Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramnath Satnami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Onkar Nath Dwivedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajeshwar Singh Rathore Vs The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Dr. Smt. Harsh Tiwari Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramkripal Tiwari Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited