1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR {c.G.) WRIT PETITION NO.4\) /2004 y PETITIONER: Ramesh Kumar Sahu aged about 19 years S/o late Shn’ g Chhabi 1a1 Sahu R/o- Tifra District Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Through TRLaCAM/w/LM, C.S.E.B. at Dangania Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Engineer C. S.Electricity Board Raipur (C.G.) The Executive Engineer (Civil), C.S.Electricity Board Raipur (C.G.) The Superintendent Engineer (Civil), C.S.Electrieity Board Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Engineer (Civil), C.S.Electricity Board Raipur (C G) i/ Q ’Tce. :Toi/wt W r PETITI N UNDER ARCTfCLsEs) 2263327 OF“i RWMQGJ THE Q,“ i DNSTITUTION OF INDIA. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS: ' As stated in the cause title above; 2. PAR TICI TLARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: l w . M W ,, M, _ rm, W 3%.mHmnm amazon? woma . mrxmc$5.2m: gw~§:Azywo ‘ HWWW,W m . 90‘0€o00§°o§h)15?0‘10 N H 200 mm<W> WW§WW Wmm ‘ éqmanév 7 6.1.2006 Shri F.5. Khare, counsel for fhe pe'ri‘rioner', i 5 Shr A. Eeharwar, Sfandin; Counsel for respondenf No.1 fa 6. Shri Vive Var-ma, counse! fc‘r respondenf No.7. Shr 5K. Beriwal, Cem‘ral 6cvernmen1‘ Counsel for respondenf No.8. Heard. By fhls pelifion lhe pelifloner has quesfloned fhe legalily, proprlef and correctness of The order dcled 19.7.1997 (Annexure P—5} issued by resonden‘l‘ No.3 and also The order dafed‘25.3.2000 (Annexure P-6). The ease of ‘i’he pefifloner is fha‘l his fafher namely Chhabilal was rking was AG-II in fhe CSEE» Depar‘rmen‘l and dlecl on 30.12.1989 in harness, copy of cleafh cerfifica‘le is Annexur'e P-l. His fafher lefl‘ behind fhe wife namely Shanfi Bai, five iaugh‘lers and one son i.e. The pel'i'l'ioner herein. The pel’h‘ioner’ is ‘l‘he only mole member in The family and unemployed. T er m fio he pel‘i‘lioner’s mo‘rh is housewi ‘e and she is dependenl- on fhe pefi‘lioner. The ofher of pei‘l‘n’er made applica‘l‘ion on 13.3.1997 before responden? No.3 along wifh an affidavi? for compassionafe appoin‘l‘menl‘. Responden‘r No.3 ide le‘Her da‘red 4.4.1997 (Annex re P—4) direcfed fhe mofher of pefi‘lioner fha‘f any member of her family, wh is eligible for service may appear before fhe Jint Secrefary, MPEB, Jabal. ur. The pefifioner’s moi-her submi‘Hed all ecessary nformafion before res nden‘i‘ No.3 and fhereaf‘l'er on 19.7.1997 responden No. issued direcfion o fhe mofher of pefifioner herein fha‘i as Te age of pefi‘iioner herein is 12 y ors and as per rule fhezyd'ep‘arfmen'i' cannof give appoinfmenf 10 *i‘he pefi‘rion because he is below 18 years of age, e "“s:\-_. ’ , W : k i y p wo I v o n i i' 3 a h XI-HC-78 EW,W,W . mama? m 200 WW#WW éswm ma§am w—z TherefoEe, apply for appoinfme mqjori‘l’yA Affer (ii-mining fhe appllcafigna.*fto§£nwgAnnexure P- refusedfhe' applicafiGn. The p6 ih‘oner asked respandenf Na.3 severa! Times fhaf he has fulfiikd aH nece ary requiremen‘l's, fher'efore, his case be considered. UlTimaTely, iT has been reqiJesTed ThaT respondenT-CSEB be direcfed 1‘0 issue appoinh'nenf compassionafe ground. Reply has been filed on b half of The respondenT-CSEB To The effecT fhaf since fhe deafh of employe was prior fa 15.11.2000 and Ias per exisfing policy da?ed 28.2.2004, even a per [ore—revised poiicy da‘i'ed 1.3.2002 The dependenfs of deceased employ e are nof enfifled for any relief, having been n$* eligible. 1 have heard The learned ounsel for The parfies. As per communicafian 3e 1* by The responden'i concerned, as menfioned earlier, as ?he pefii‘ioner was mm(wv) inor, Therefore, he was noT enTiTled for campassionafe appainfmen‘l and. hen he affained The age of majoriTy in The year 1997 and wenT To submiT T e applicoTion, respondenT No.3 sTraighT way refused To accepT The applicaTi n and The reply of The respondem‘ CSEB is ThaT as The deaTh Took place pri r To 15.11.2000, Therefore, The dependenTs of The deceased employee ugho cempassioneTe appoinTmenT. IT is on admiTTed posiTion ThaT The peTiTion‘ér applied in The year 1997 e, Tea. nT when The peTiTioner aTTains The age of age of 18 years, The peTiTioner submiTTed 7) for appoinTmenT, buT respondenT No.3 favour of The peTiTioner forThwiTh on The i led prior To 15.11.2000 are noT enTiTled for when The policy dared 30.119 was in force, however, aT ThaT Time The 9 XI—HC—78 o ..oo.o‘...ooo EW,WW,W E 200 WO WW(W) WHE'HW (‘3 WWEWW ésmm pe‘m'ioner- has no? afiained fhe Amexur'e P—7 mark sheaf accordir 17.1985 The pefifioner‘ affained fime fhe po’Hcy of year 1997 w (Annexur‘e R-5) came info force a fhe dependenfs of fhose employeq‘s only who died or has become incapacifa‘i‘ed iischar‘ging fhe dufy of the Boar-d shaii be ‘menf. no avermenf in fhe petition Thcrr The pefifioner‘s fofher died on occounf of any acciden‘i' while discharging The dufy of fhe Board. Learned counse pei'ifioner's fa'i'her died on acco: cancer and as such, fhe pefifione accident fherefore, the case of 1' 1.3.2002 is no? covered. In fhe resul‘i’, I do no? finc dismissed and accordingiy, if is dis age ¢f majorify, which is evidenf from yg fa which The dafe of hwh of pefifioner is rhe age of mqjorify on 1.7.2003 and by Thaf as revised and new policy da‘red 1.3.2002 id as per policy dafed 1.3.2002 of fhe CSEB on accoun'l- of on accidenf while i enfified for compassiona-re appoim In The presen'i‘ There is I for The peii'i’ioner suhmi‘rfed fhm The mf of disease, as he was suffering from :r’s fafher had no? died on accoun‘i of any 1e pe‘iifioner under The revised policy da‘red any merif in This case, some is liable To be missed. Sd/— L.C.BHADOO Judge