Santosh Singh Chouhan vs The Chhattisgarh State Power ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2248 Chatt

                                        -1-


                                                                            NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                               WPS No. 4786 of 2021
   1. Santosh Singh Chouhan S/o Late Shri Kirit Singh Chouhan Aged About 37
      Years Occupation Un-Employed, R/o Village Ufara, Post Jheet, P. S. And
      Tahsil Patan, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh
                                                                  ---- Petitioner
                                      Versus
   1. The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its
      Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
   2. The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Raipur Through
      Its General Director (Hrd), Daganiya, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
   3. Executive Director Human Resources, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding
      Company Limited, Daganiya, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
   4. Executive Engineer (E/M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company
      Limited, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh
                                                               ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

09.09.2021

1. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P/1 dated 05.11.2019, the present

writ petition has been filed.

2. Vide the impugned order, the representation of the petitioner

claiming for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

3. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition

suffers from delay laches and the same deserves to be rejected on

that ground.

4. The factual matrix as is evident from the pleadings would show that

the father of the petitioner working under the respondents died in

harness on 09.07.2000. The petitioner earlier had moved many

application for compassionate appointment all of which stood

rejected vide Annexure P/3 dated 09.08.2007, 11.12.2007,

06.06.2012, 06.07.2013, 01.08.2013, 03.12.2014 & 23.01.2015.

None of these orders have been challenged before any competent

Court of law promptly or within a reasonable period of time. The

petitioner in the year 2019 again preferred a fresh representation

which now stands rejected vide Annexure P/1. No plausible

explanation has been provided by the petitioner as to why he could

not approach the authorities for claiming for compassionate

appointment within a reasonable period of time.

5. It has been time and again settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court as also by this Court that the claim for

compassionate appointment cannot be construed as another source

of recruitment. The claim for compassionate appointment always has

to be made immediately upon the death of the deceased employee.

6. The reason for framing the policy of compassionate appointment, is

to ensure that the family of the deceased employee is not put to a

state of penury and they also do not face financial crises on account

of the death of the sole bread earner.

7. If the employer has a policy for compassionate appointment and the

claimant for the deceased employee does not claim compassionate

appointment for a considerable long period of time, it has to be

presumed that the family has sufficient means to sustain themselves.

Moreover, once when a claim for compassionate appointment is

decided by rejecting the same, the cause of action arises then.

8. In the instant case, the first order of the petitioner's claim for

compassionate appointment stood rejected first in the year 2007

thereafter it was rejected on various occasions practically every year

till 2015. None of these orders have been questioned by the

petitioner at any point of time. It seems that the petitioner went on

making representation after representation claiming for

compassionate appointment and it is now after more than 21 years

after the death of the deceased, the petitioner has now filed the writ

petition against the recent rejection order.

9. Thus, from the factual matrix itself it is evidently clear that there is an

inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court

for ventilating his grievance. Therefore, the petition deserves to be

and is accordingly rejected. Another ground for rejection is also that

even the impugned order is one which was rejected way back on

05.11.2019 and thereafter also the present writ petition has been

now filed after almost about two years.

10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

J-