^ (1) 1MRI F RF'^iUH 11'^^ L:^ ^tv^.&^^ .nrt' ^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. A& /200S PETITIONER ^&^ ,...^^^^-1"::..- i--:;:m%iV',^--""' ^s^'s^ RESPONDENTS /l. Smt. Punni Bai Sahu, aged about 35 years, W/o. Late Shri Chait Ram Sahu, Village aad Post- Bhoring, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattitsgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer Water Resources Departinent District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer, Kodar Head Work, Sub Division Water Resources Department District- Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLE 2i$6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA F^RJtSSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE iti*<?''^ MATTER ^^_A: XI-HC-22 ^sf -swvR, Vi5\WQ, ftrtl+iy wi?iT%t(rai ^.....M 200 fa'bt^t' 311^1 ^I Wi<h 'snfn 5t)+li<t) -Mf^t 3iii?i ^RIIW: ^ifta <t)Hfe4hr iira^ff ^ fs^ ;iR»i-i^.i< •^'3lpOT3T^?I 23-3-201 Shri Suni! Ohvani; counsei for Shri.y.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advo DY. Govf. Advocate for the' State of Gt •'The petitioner has filea' this Constifution of India praying fec appolntment. . • • ; The'petitioner's husband, narr the post 'of Gangrnan under the re; durina his servics. Death Certiflcate of her husband, the petitioner appl'r appointment before the respondent •submlts that depsndants 6f other pe been given compassionate appoinl Water: Resources. Department and Works Dspartment, hut the petitioner reiief olaimed is for a direction to th appointment to the petifioner. . • Learned State counsel submii e'ariy as possibte and Ifshe is entiti'e| .wii! bs siveri. ' , . This Court in the case of |he petitioner. ' • . ^ate Genera! and Shri Satish.Gypta, lattjsaarh. . betition under Artteie 226/227 of the |a direction to give comDassionate |ely Chait Ram Sffhu was working on Ipondent no.3, He died on :4-2-2005 |s Annexure P-1. Ori account Qf death id on 19-10-2005 for cornpassionate lno.2 as per annexure P-2..Gounsei Irsons, who died during sen/ice, have. ImeFits as per Annexure P-4 in. the [as per Annexu'r& P-5 in the Pub!ic has not been given empioym^nt. The ^ respondents to give compassionate ts.that the matter wlli be examined as r compassionate appointment, s'ne nt. Bhunbai Sahu Vs. Smt. Hamida Siadigyireported In 2002fiy CSU regarding compassionate appointme^ was heid that the compassionate is.| I has hicjhiiflhted the problerns nt and directions have beeri issued, It a benevolent provision. and has been '.[^^fisl^ XI-HC-22 an^r^r h-fM 3IRST ^•HN) ^if^, /' ";-£. Gowri1 ^ j^^ ^ ^^~ ^. 'SVf ^iWld'q, ^Tl!ylld, feiRty ~^rm^(a *11*iCTI %W=R {g^^' made with the obj'ect that.after the d| d'ependerfts should not be rendered th?.petiiiQnershould not'be harassecil There shouid not be any del^ justiee. No usefui purpose would 'o^ for compassionate appointments early as 'po'ssibie. _ Having considered the. facts| materiai on recora, it is directed thafl as eariy as possible preferably with| date pf production/receipt 6f a cop^ compassionate appointment, she ease'she is not sntitted, then the copy be supplied to.her free pf cost a| Th.e.peSition is according.ly di| fiie afresh in case grievance stiil rem^ Certified copy as per ruies. Copy tq.State Counsel for ptnci +wf<-t^;T tmRff'? fs^S <[^<^i< •E& •3if:g*i SIK^I sath ofthe govemment empioyge, his titute.It was further di :y in such cases.as the deiay defeats served in keeping such applications indirig. They- should be decided as and-clrcurastances of the case and the case of the. petitioner be decided jn a peric-d of three months from the 'l. of this order. If she is entitied for be given the appointment and in ir shbuid specify the reasons and her address. • iposed of.at this stcige with Rberty -to iins. • . :' • . , ' Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [^•^A