ORDER :

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner was not found entitled to get compassionate appointment after the death of his father.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that father of the petitioner namely Shiv Kumar Yadav was posted as Lineman Assistant Class-1 in Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, City Division, Raipur (for brevity “CSPDCL”). On 20.12.2008, father of the petitioner died in harness leaving behind the petitioner and his widow wife namely Sofia Begam. Thereafter, on 03.11.2009, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment through his mother before the Competent Authority. However, the said application was not considered as at that time, the petitioner was only aged about 14 years. Thereafter, in the year 2012, when the petitioner became major, he received a letter on 25.07.2012 to file a fresh application for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his claim and the process for compassionate appointment was initiated by the respondent/Authorities. However, on 08.01.2016, the respondent/Authority rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, he was minor. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. He places reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of Pushpendra Nath Sonesare Vs. State of C.G. and Anr. decided on 10.09.2018 in Writ Appeal No.537/2015 and in the matter of Smt. Kanak and Anr. Vs. State of C.G. and Anr. passed on 10.07.2020 by this High Court in WPS No.2615/2020. He submits that when an application for compassionate appointment is preferred by a person after attaining the age of majority, the same cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. He further places reliance on the matter of Supram Prasad Vs. State of C.G., 2012 (4) CGLJ 137 and would submit that if the hardship persists in the family, the application for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and compassionate appointment can be granted. He submits that the petitioner and his widow mother have been facing hardships since the death of his father, therefore, the impugned order dated 08.01.2016 be set aside and appropriate direction may be issued to the concerned Authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5/CSPDCL opposes the prayer of the petitioner and would submit that in the Scheme of the department issued on 28.02.2004, there is no provision for relinquishment or waiving off the conditions. Learned counsel further submits that according to condition No.5 of the said Scheme, which is applicable to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have submitted the application for claim within one year from the date of death of the employee as after the said period no action would be taken on such application, however, at the relevant time, the petitioner herein was minor. Further, in the scheme of 2004 there is no provision to entertain the application of a minor after his attaining the age of majority, therefore, petitioner cannot take such benefit as per the policy of the Department. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the CSPDCL on 08.01.2016, however, the petitioner approached this Court after delay of more than 4 and a half years and this conduct itself shows that the petitioner or his mother were not facing any hardship. Not only this, the mother of the petitioner had never applied for compassionate appointment, which too goes to show that there was no distress in the family. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and