Laxmi Prasad Kashyap v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3114 of 2015 • Laxmi Prasad Kashyap S/o Late Ramlakhan Kashyap, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Birra, Police Station & Tahsil Champa, Civil & Revenue District Janjgir- Champa, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Electricity, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Engineer ( C& M) Chhattisgarh State Power Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Chief Engineer ( Bilaspur Circle), Chhattisgarh State Power Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri KPS Gandhi, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 26/08/2015

1. Petitioner is the grandson of late Dayadan, who died in harness on 29-9-1987 while working as lineman under the services of erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short 'the MPEB').

2. Placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in the matter of Amit Rao Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. and others1 and 1W.P.(S) No.363/2015

other connected matters and Raja Ram Kosle Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & others2 and other connected matters, learned counsel would submit that petitioner's case also deserves consideration on the basis of circular issued by the erstwhile MPEB on 30-1-1997.

3. True it is that in those cases, this Court has directed consideration of cases of several dependents of deceased employees of the erstwhile MPEB, however, in the case at hand, petitioner's grandfather died more than ten years back from the date of issuance of the circular. About 28 years have elapsed after death of his grandfather. The object of the provision for grant of compassionate appointment is to assist the dependents of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis on account of death of the bread winner. Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment.

4. Be that as it may, it is the well settled proposition of law that the grant of compassionate appointment after long time or after attaining the age of majority is not permissible. (See: Union of India and others v. Bhagwan Singh3, Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar and another4, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another5, Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh6, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another7 and State of U.P. and others v. Ram Sukhi Devi8).

2WP (S) No.360/2015 (1995) 6 SCC 476 (1996) 1 SCC 301 (1996) 8 SCC 23 (1997) 8 SCC 85 (2004) 12 SCC 487 (2005) 9 SCC 733

5. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra ashu