SAHDEV LAL SURYAVANSHI vs CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD. ( CSPGCL )

Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J

1) The petitioner has filed this petition, seeking following relief(s):-

“I.That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) by declaring that, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment and further issue direction to the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law.

II.That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be please to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent authority to issue the appointment order in favour of the petitioner without any further delay.

III. Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was posted on the post of Security Guard under the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Department at Korba unit and he died on 22.07.1999. He would further submit that after formation of State of Chhattisgarh, various applications were filed before the new Electricity Board seeking compassionate appointment and petitions were also filed before this Court wherein direction for consideration of applications for compassionate appointment was issued, which was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the matter SLP(C) No.19197 of 2006 (Chhattisarh State Electricity Board v. Sanjay Yadav and others) on 26.08.2014, issued a direction to the Electricity Board to consider the cases for grant of compassionate appointment. Thereafter, application was moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and same was forwarded to the respondent No.2 on 08.09.2015, however, same is still pending consideration.

3) On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents would submit that the application moved by the petitioner is after 15 years without explaining the delay with appropriate reasons. She would submit that the application moved by the petitioner is not decided on merits, it would be decided by the authorities concerned expeditiously.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file.

5) Taking into consideration the fact that the application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner in the year 2015 and same was forwarded to the higher authorities on 08.09.2015, but till date same has not been decided by the authorities concerned, at this juncture, without making any observation on merits of the case, the instant petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities particularly

respondent No.1 to decide the pending application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6) With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition is hereby disposed of. No Cost(s).