Rukhmani Jangde Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Through General Manager (HR), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Campus of CS Power Companies Danganiya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Chief Engineer, Raipur Rural Region, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, BTI Road, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Janki Bai Jangde Wd/o Late Premlal Jangde R/o Village And Post Office Bemcha, Tahsil and District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2

¶14

5 - Tej Bahadur Jangde S/o Late Premlal Janglde R/o Village And Post Office Bemcha, Tahsil and District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶15

6 - Smt. Neetu Bhardwaj W/o Chandrasen Bhardwaj, D/o Late Premlal Janglde R/o Village Sendar, Post Parsadakala, Tahsil Rajeem, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr Anukul Biswas, Advocate
For Respondents	: Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
1 to 3	Utsav Majeshwar. Advocate
For Respondents	Mr. Himanshu Kunjam, Advocate on behalf of
4 to 6	Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate

¶19

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

18/03/2026

¶22

By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the appointment order dated 28.2.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.1, whereby respondent No.5 was appointed on compassionate grounds without obtaining NOC from the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition:

¶24

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the appointment order dated 28-022023 (Annexure P-1) of compassionate appointment of the respondent No. 5.

¶25

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application

¶26

3

¶27

submitted by the petitioner for compassionate

¶28

appointment as per rule.

¶29

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 & 5 to give the petitioner her rightful amount out of the amount received as death claim payment of Late Premlal Jangde.

¶30

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.

¶31

Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that Premlal Jangde, who died in harness on 12.11.2022, was the father-in-law of the petitioner and was working as Driver under respondent No.3-Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited. There were three children of Late Premlal Jangde - two sons namely Mohit Jangde and Tej Bahadur Jangde (respondent No.5) and one daughter namely Neetu Jangde (respondent No.6). Mohit Jangde, elder son of Late Premlal Jangde, was married and subsequently passed away on 03.08.2022. The present petitionerRukhmani Jangde is the wife of Late Mohit Jangde. She has two minor children - Manan Jangde (6 years) and Chhaya Jangde (2 1/2 years). There are four legal heirs of deceased -Late Premlal Jangde: (i) Janki Bai Jangde - widow of Late Premlal Jangde (respondent No.4) (ii) the present petitioner Rukhmani Jangde, daughter-in-law of Late Premlal Jangde, (iii) Tej Bahadur Jangde

¶32

4

¶33

son of Late Premlal Jangde (respondent No.5) and (iv) Neetu Jangde, daughter of Late Premlal Jangde (respondent No.6). All the aforementioned persons were financially dependents of the deceased, therefore, they are collectively entitled to the settlement of death-cum-retirement benefits including ex-gratia payments, allowances, leave encashment, gratuity and GPF payment etc. However, respondent No.4 unilaterally claimed and retained the entire financial benefits, which is approximately Rs. 41 lakhs. The petitioner submitted an application before respondent No.3 objecting to disbursal of death claim benefits before respondent No.4. However, the respondent authorities proceeded to release all death claim payments to respondent No.4. Furthermore, respondent No.5 wrongfully filed an application for compassionate appointment. Though pursuant to the applicable rules, obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from all legal heirs is a condition precedent for such an appointment, but respondent No.5 obtained a NOC only from his mother - respondent No.4. Ultimately, respondent No.1 issued the impugned order dated 28.2.2023 for compassionate appointment of respondent No.5. In pursuance of the said order, respondent No.5 joined the service and is working as an Attendant (Line) under respondent No.2. Hence, this petition.

¶34

Mr. Anukul Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment order dated 28.2.2023 issued by respondent No.1 is not in accordance with law as respondent No.5 did not obtain NOC from the petitioner. He further submits that the

¶35

5

¶36

petitioner, being a legal heir of late Premlal Jangde, is the most eligible candidate for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the petitioner has filed a case before the Court of learned First Civil Judge Class-I, Mahasamund (CG) under Section 372 of the Hindu Succession Act for the Succession Certificate, which is still pending. He lastly submits that the petitioner is entitled for both the compassionate appointment and a proportionate share of the death claim payments in her capacity as a legal heir.

¶37

Per contra, Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Utsav Maheshwar, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner has sought to espouse multiple distinct grievances in a single petition, which is legally impermissible. Furthermore, the petitioner has herself approached the trial Court to seek her share of the deceased employee’s claims. She further submits that the respondents are duty-bound to strictly adhere to the departmental policies and the statutory provisions framed thereunder. She submits that under clause 5 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, where multiple candidates exist, the decision is governed by the consent of the deceasedemployee’s spouse and such consent was given in favour of respondent No.5. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the respective respondents would place reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Parkash Chand, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285 . She lastly submits that the

¶38

6

¶39

appointment order was issued in strict adherence to the departmental policy and after due consideration of the relevant factors and circumstances.

¶40

Likewise, Mr. Himanshu Kunjam, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 submits that the petitioner’s NOC was not necessary in this matter, as she resides separately and is not dependent upon the respondents. He submits that the husband of the petitioner namely late Mohit Jangde was employed as a driver in Mahatari Express (operated under EMRI Health Service, C.G under Health Department). After his death, all the dues and allowance pertaining to the deceased-husband, were settled and paid to the petitioner.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶42

On a bare perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner as well as respondents 4, 5 & 6 are the daughter-in-law, widow, son and daughter of deceased employee – Premlal Jangde. It further transpires that with the consent of the widow of deceasedemployee namely Janki Bai Jangde, compassionate appointment has been granted to respondent No.5- Tej Bahadur Jangde, son of the deceased-employee. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of deceased and respondent No.6 is the married daughter of Premlal Jangde, who lives in her matrimonial house. Apparently, the petitioner reside separately from her in-laws and was not dependent on the deceased-employee. Moreover, late husband

¶43

7

¶44

of the petitioner namely Mohit Jangde was employed as a driver in Mahatari Express (operated under EMRI Health Service, C.G under the Health Department) and after his death, all his dues and allowances were paid to the petitioner. Ultimately, the respondent authorities acted upon the consent and declaration given by respondent No.4-widow of the deceased-employee (Janki Bai Jangde) on affidavit in favour of respondent No.5 (Tej Bahadur Jangde). Therefore, respondent No.4 is deemed the primary dependent after the death of her husband Premlal Jangde.

¶45

Admittedly, the subject policy has been formulated by respondentState to govern the grant of compassionate appointment to dependents of deceased-employee. As per Clause 5 of the said policy, in cases involving multiple applications, an affidavit from the spouse of the deceased-employee shall be considered. In the present case, the wife of the deceased (respondent No.4) submitted an affidavit in favour of respondent No.5. Consequently, as the policy determines eligibility based on the spouse’s consent, the appointment order was issued to respondent No.5 accordingly, therefore, a No Objection Certificate need not be obtained from the petitioner (daughter-in-law of the deceased).

¶46

Furthermore, it is a settled position of law that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. Such an appointment can be claimed only on the basis of specific scheme available at the relevant time. In Parkash Chand (supra), the following was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 :

¶47

8

¶48

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 [ Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana , (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] , SBI v. Kunti Tiwary [ SBI v. Kunti Tiwary , (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] , Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja [ Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja , (2004) 7 SCC 265 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 938] , SBI v. Somvir Singh [ SBI v. Somvir Singh , (2007) 4 SCC 778 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 92] , Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [ Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra , (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] , Union of India v. Shashank Goswami [ Union of India v. Shashank Goswami , (2012) 11 SCC 307 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 51] , SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi [ SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi , (2014) 15 SCC 739 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 689] and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar [ Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar , (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] .]

¶49

It is a well settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to dependents, enabling the family to tide over the sudden financial crises occasioned by the untimely death of the sole breadwinner. As the widow of the deceased-employee, respondent No.4 is the appropriate person entitled to the first preference for such

¶50

9

¶51

appointment. Having duly accorded her consent and declaration in favour of respondent No.5 (son), the appointment order dated 28.2.2023 is issued in accordance with the prevailing policy and law.

¶52

For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶53

Nevertheless, it is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the subject Succession Case pending before the concerned trial Court filed by the petitioner, which shall be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made herein. This order is strictly confined to the matter of compassionate appointment and shall have no bearing on the determination of legal heirship or succession.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶56

Shyna Ajay

Rukhmani Jangde v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukhmani Jangde v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivanand Verma Vs Union of India

Prashant Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bindu Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited (S.E.C.L)

Smt. Anjana Banotiya (Dead) Through LRs.- Vs Smt. Shashi Yadav

Kartik @ Pannalal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Vs State of Chhattisgarh