6) . (’Jxwot é) 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDKIATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wgJgvgNo é S‘Eigiggil PETI’I‘I O N ER Amrit Bai Tandan W/o Late Shri Nck Ram Tandan, aged about 31 years, R/o Village Jamgahan, Tah$i1 & RS. Bilaigarh, District ‘Raipur (06.) At present R/o Village: Lcndhara, Tahsil Sara ngarh, Di strict Raigarh (C . G .J VERSUS RESPON DENTS ' I. State of Chhattisgarh Tl'lrough: The Secretary of Home Dcpartmcn t, D. K. S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) LC) /,, . The Directur General of Home Guard Police, Chhattisgarh Ralpur, District Raipur (C.G.} The District Commandant Home Guard Police, Raipur District Rmpur (cc) ' v 4. ’l‘hc District Collc:ct0r Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) WRI'l‘ PE’l‘lTlON UNDER ARTICLE 926 OF TllE CONS’l‘l'l‘U’l‘ION OF lNDlA The petitioncr most humbly and respectfully bogs to submit as under : & ” / > HIGH COURT OF CHHATT’IBGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HOWBLE MR. JU8TICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.p.[sy.no. 5407/2011 PETITIONER Amrit Bai Tandan RESPONDENTS Statc of C.G. & Others Shri U.R.Khos]cy, counsel for the pctiiioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the Stat. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE OOHITITUTION OF IHDIA ORDER (14.09.2011) Ga'ievancc of the peu'u'oner in the pmsent petition is that husband of the pedu’oner late Nek Ram Tandan who was working as Home Guard with the respondents died on 28.7.08. Contention of Shri Khosley, counsel for the petin'oner is that though the peu'n'oner has made representau‘on on 29.8.08 but 11'11 date his representation for compassionam appointmmt has not been considemd nor any order has been passed. Acconiing to the State counsel the autholitjes may not have considered the petitioner’s representation because proper applicab'on in the pmscribed form has not been med by the petitioner. Considering the them and circumstances of the case, the pen'n'oner is ditected to me a hesh application before the competent authority within a period of two weeks hum today and the said authority will consider this application in accordance with law. The authority would also be at liberty to consider the previous applicah'on of the petitioner if already not decided. With the above observation, the pen'tion stands disposed o£ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge