ROSHNI BHARADWAJ vs CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED

1

CGHC010343762026 2026:CGHC:39129
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6512 of 2026
Roshni Bharadwaj Wife Of Late Shri Pawan Kumar Bharadwaj Aged
About 46 Years Resident Of N.D.-93, C.S.E.B. Colony, Korba, District -
Korba (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through
Its Managing Director, Office At Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya,
Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Chief Engineer (H.R.) C.S.P.G.C.L., Danganiya Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Chief Engineer (Generation) D.S.P.M., C.S.P.G.C.L., Korba East,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
4 - General Manager ( F And A ) Chhattisgarh State Power
Generation Company Limited, Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)

2
5 - Manager Pension C.G.P.G.C.L., Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
6 - Shrishti Bharadwaj D/o Late Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj Aged About
21 Years Through First Wife Smt. Shyama Devi (Divorced), R/o House
No 38, Zone 1, Lane No. 1, New Adarsh Nagar, Durg, District Durg
(C.G.).
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal,
Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
07.09.2026
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner, claiming
to be the legally wedded wife of Late Pawan Kumar
Bharadwaj, who was an employee of the Chhattisgarh State
Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPGCL), seeks a
direction to the respondents to decide her application for
compassionate appointment dated 09.02.2026 and the
reminder dated 04.06.2026, filed as Annexures P/3 and P/4,
respectively, within a stipulated period.

3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the order
passed in the earlier round of litigation in WPS No.
7075/2025 and WPS No. 12757/2025, submits that the
daughter of the first wife of the deceased employee had
preferred WPS No. 7075/2025, whereas the present
petitioner had preferred WPS No. 12757/2025. Both the writ
petitions were disposed of with the following observations:
“ 2. In the aforementioned facts of case when
petitioner in both the cases are claiming similar relief
including death cum retiral dues of deceased
employee and compassionate appointment and right
of parties to succeed the property of deceased
employee is still pending consideration before
competent Court, I am of the considered view that
petitioner can file appropriate proceeding for
redressal of their grievance after crystallizing their
rights by the order of competent Court in application
filed under Section 372 of the Hindu Succession Act.
3. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of
with the aforesaid observation reserving liberty with
respective petitioner to file appropriate proceeding

4
before the appropriate authority for relief of
compassionate appointment.”
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid observations, the petitioner as
well as the daughter of the first wife of the deceased
employee moved their respective
representations/applications before the Chief Engineer
(HR), CSPGCL, on 09.02.2026, vide Annexure P/2. It is
submitted that the said application is still pending and has
not been considered.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that, although the earlier applications submitted by the
petitioner as well as the daughter of the first wife of the
deceased employee were rejected on the ground that a
dispute existed between the two family members and,
therefore, their claims could not be considered, the
applications presently submitted pursuant to the directions
and observations made by this Court in WPS No. 7075/2025
and WPS No. 12757/2025 shall be considered in accordance
with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner as well as respondent No. 6, who is the daughter
of the deceased employee. It is further submitted that the

5
said applications shall be considered and decided within a
period of 50 days.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents
to consider and decide the applications submitted by the
petitioner and respondent No. 6, in accordance with law,
after affording due opportunity of hearing to both of them,
within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
shoaib