Kamal Kishor Sidar v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2662 of 2016 Kamal Kishor Sidar S/o Late Shri Sangram Singh, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bahnatangar, Post Sureshpur, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited (A Government Of Chhattisgarh Udertaking), Through Its Managing Director, 2nd Floor, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, ( A Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking), Through Its Managing Director, 2nd Floor, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Deputy Managing Director, ( Human Resources)- II, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Executive Director ( Human Resources), Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, counsel for the petitioner/s. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 05/07/2016 The petitioner has assailed correctness and validity of order dated 01/03/2016 by which, the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the spirit of the policy of compassionate appointment, the petitioner, being son of deceased employee, ought to be considered for compassionate appointment, keeping in view that at the time of death of the employee, the petitioner was a minor, only aged about six years and therefore, at that time, he could not move application for

compassionate appointment. The petitioner attained majority in the year 2012, therefore, he moved application for grant of compassionate appointment on 22/12/2014.

3.

The object and purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the dependents of an employee who died in harness. The petitioner was minor aged six years in the year 2000 when his father died. The petitioner has made application for compassionate appointment in the year 2014. Nothing could be pointed out with reference to the policy of compassionate appointment existing as on 06/08/2000 that upon attaining majority, application for compassionate appointment could be made by the dependent minor. 4.

In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is therefore dismissed.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti