Competing claims for compassionate appointment must be decided after hearing all eligible claimants.

The petitioner claimed to be the legally wedded wife of Late Pawan Kumar Bharadwaj, an employee of the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, and sought consideration of her application dated 09.02.2026 and reminder dated 04.06.2026 for compassionate appointment.

In earlier proceedings, WPS Nos. 7075/2025 and 12757/2025, filed respectively by the deceased employee’s daughter from his first wife and by the present petitioner, the High Court granted liberty to the parties to approach the competent authority after crystallising their succession rights in proceedings under Section 372 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner and respondent No. 6 submitted applications before the Chief Engineer (HR), CSPGCL, but the applications remained undecided.

The respondents undertook that the applications would be considered in accordance with law after providing both claimants an opportunity of hearing.

The Court applied the principle that competing claims for compassionate appointment and death-cum-retiral benefits arising from the service of a deceased employee must be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, particularly where the parties’ succession rights are disputed.

The Court also relied on the liberty granted in the earlier proceedings permitting the parties to approach the appropriate authority after their rights were crystallised in proceedings under Section 372 of the Hindu Succession Act.

No final determination of the parties’ entitlement to compassionate appointment was made in the present proceedings.

The Court noted that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 had submitted competing applications pursuant to the earlier orders, but that the applications had not yet been adjudicated.

Since the respondents acknowledged that the claims could be examined notwithstanding the earlier rejection based on the family dispute, the Court considered it appropriate to require a lawful administrative determination rather than decide the competing entitlement itself.

Principles of procedural fairness required that both the petitioner and respondent No. 6 be heard before any decision was taken.

The Court did not grant compassionate appointment to either claimant and left their substantive entitlement to be determined by the competent authority.