»"—•--"..:: 1/'^--'KM-' ^.^•^ .'^•&<5. ,..<^^ "^- ' '. „.*" t ^^r~\ars> ^tE? IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURfOFCHHATTISGARHWrBIt.ftSPllR MGJ. _. WRIT PETITION fS) N0. ^ll ' OF2GQS PETITIONER ^'.^y Mukesh KumarShukla Son^if Latg Shri Devnarayan Shukla, Sgecl about 20 years, Resident of Village and Post Bansankra, Tahsil and Police Station Sirnga, DiStrict Raipur (C.(3.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^- 6. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department Qf Urbarr Administration and Development, D.K.S. Bhawan^ Raipur[C.G.). The Depyfy Director, Bepartment of Urban Adhnihistration arid Develcipmeht, Directorate, Raipur .(C.G.)... . ";! : !.: .:• Nagar Panchayat Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.), through the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Bodri, DistrictBilaspur(G.G.). The Chief Municipal Qfficer, Nagar Panchayat BQdri, Distnct Bilaspur ;:(C.G.). •-;: : :,,:; :.:- ,.;-,:. The Chief Municipal Officer, IMagar Panchayat Ratanpur, DistnGt Bilaspur (C.GO. • , 1'^^ ..'^;^^ w'sws WsSSS t:."fe.;®SKBil Smt.'San:d;hya^S|-lu:l<!a^Wif&jo||||^g|^g Shri'Devnar-ayatl/;lnu;l<la^:^SMBI L'':^?,?^?1— /^-/^rw^^F^u'fC^^^^^^u^ -^V^^j^-v.^^TT^ \.-JL^^^\/^<;T^'uV^\,\.^L~^'VJh^^^^^^XAA^^AA^^f^^1^^w^A^ of Jyotipur, Behihd Church, Gourella, District Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION £)F INDIA •^;?S! H!QH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR WRST PETITiON iS) N0. 4179 OF 2008 PETITiONER Mukesh Kumar Shukla Versus State of Chhatttegarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present;- Shri P.P. Sahu, counsei for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt.Advocste forthe State. Shri Rakesh Pandev, counsei for the respondent No.6. ORDERfORALI (Passed on this 23 day ofSepiember, 2009) 1. With the consent of iearned counsel appearing for the parties, the oetition is heard finailv. 2. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits ihat the. petitioner being son of the dec^ased namely; Devnarayan Shukia, has made an appiication before the rsspondent-authorities to cancei the compassionate appointment grantsd in favour of the respondent No.6 wherein an undertaking to take care of the dependant members of the deceased empioyee, was glven by the respondentNo.6. 3. According to Shri Sahu, leamed counsst for the Detitioner, the rsspondent No.S, sfter obtaining the appointment on compassionate basis, has compteteiy ignored the petitioner and his brother and both of them are suffering on account of improper care bv the resDondent No.S. Shri Sahu submits that the petitioner has made an application before the respondent authorities tocancel the appointment of the respondent No.Sand 7 ^ 5. Thakur 1 <^ to consider his case, in accordance with iaw. The respondent- authorities may be directed to consider and decide fhe representation/application of the petitioner within 'a stipuiatsd period. Shri Bhatia, learned counsei for ihe State submits that the pending representation/appiication of the petitioner would be considered and decided, in accordance with iaw, on its own merits, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copyofthisorder. In view of foregoing, according to learned counsei appearing for the Detitioner, nothina survives in this Detition for adiudication. Accordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the respondent-authorities are dirscted that while deciding the appiication of the petitioner, proper opportunity of hearing may be granied to the resppndent No.6 and thereafter pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on its own merits; ^t^ 7 ia) saOsllJuA8E ^ff..