..^^^ ^-^•-::"^-f^"^-- ^^'[tH-^ ••--""""" IN THE HIGH CQURT^)FJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETSTIQN N0.^-??5 /2006 ik 7S-,»,-i :A" 1. Mangal Prasad Sahu, S/o- Late KaUash Chandra Sahu, Aged about 24 years, R/o- Gram & Post - Baloda, Tehsil - Mahasamuad, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhatdsgarh. VERSUS State ofChattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Deptt. OfGeneral Admimstration, Mantoralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Secretary, Deptt. ofEducation, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, CG. State ofMadhya Pradesh, Through-Secretary, Genera Administration Deptt., Secrefariaf- Bhopal, M.P. District Education OfGcer, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamimd, Chhattisgarh. Unionoflndia, Throgh-Director, Departmemt ofPersonnel, Trainmg and PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE QF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI ETC. ^.; X''S^v'3Sr!S'JS^ '•:^?s?s& ^sSS^ XI-HC-22 7S -^WK'I^ vSw , F^wwy, i^%) sn^T^ii (siw sw^y shW'b 'Hffg ^ /•.. ~ ^ iiini a>t)rai iRra? i-s^/y^ "^ 200 f^^w' 3i^r ^gn^-of^cT 18-1-260r no.5. Petitioner byShri AmitVermi Shri S.P.-Kale, Govt. Advocat Miss Sharmila Singhai, Cei Application for urgent hearins Heard. This case relates to comij upon the death of an employee serv) Learned counsel for the p< death of the employee occurred o^ not eariier. It is further submitted No. 1322/2002 involving the same <j this Court on 20/12/2005. He pray^ this case also. Learned counsel for the Stalk states that the State of Chhattisgarf cases of dependants of those emp] strictly in accordance with the poli) submits that four months time fcfi gjven. [ In view of the submissionsj for the parties, without expressing in the opiniqn of this Court, "snds o|f given to the State of Chhattisga^ consider and decide the case of •wferih•>nwff-^ fei^ •(fsRCT: ^aifigqsn^T Advocate. >, fortheState. htral Govt. Counsel isallowed. for respondeht tessionate appointment consequent |ng in the State. ^titioner categorically stated that the 24-3-2000 i.e. after 1-11-1997and that jn batch of cases bearing W.P. [uestion, orders have been passed by that similar orders may be passed in does not dispute the above fact and has taken a decisionto consider the ?yees who died on or after 1/11/1997 ;y prevalent at that time. He however issuing necessary orders may be made by learned counsel appearing iny opinion on the merits of the case, justice will be served if a direction is h andthe authorities concerned to ie petitibner in accordance with the poticy prevalent atthe time of de^th of theemployeeconcerned. ifthe petitioner found eligible, app6intrr|ent orders wilt b6 issued as early as i|lst May, -2006. The petitioner is also pQSSible preferably onor before 3 directed to render due co-operati^n to the authorities. It is made clear that if any grievance still remains available under the law including fi the order to the respondents for cofnpliance. the petitioner may availthe remedy ing ofthepetition before this Court. Wjth the aforesaidobsen/ati|3ns, this petition stands disposed of. Certifjed copy as per ruies. Copy to the State counseij who will be obligecl_to_communicate Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [«^fi34