s l'zr3^-—— S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. •3\ ^\\ /2QW: PETITIONER: Sanni Nag, son of Late Sukhnath Nag, aged about 24 years, residence of Maharani Ward, Collectrate Road, Near Preni Band Party, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents ,^^. r. Crf .s> ^l. State of Chhatfisgarh, Through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, ^'^,;^.'.-\ ^^y !f-^>-" v^ X®ri^ ^- '•• K.€?- '..•C^A.-"A.S> ;v..'/^-r''"\^v Chhattisgarh. - 2. Director Health Services, Sanchanalaya, Health Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. -3. Director, Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, D.K.S.Bhawan, Complex, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. /4. Joint Director cum Superintendent, Govt. Medical College, Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. /Q. Commissioner, Bastar, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. /I. Collector, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. / ^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA K IW-1 2/D HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR- WRITPETITION (S) N0.31 OF 2011 PETITIONER Sanni Nag Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 7' day ofJanuary,.2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father ofthe petitioner namely; Sukhnath Nag died on 13-7-2006 in harness while working as Sweeper in Government Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the respondent authorities for grant of compassionate appointment in the year 2006. The State Government by order dated 5-7-2010 directed the concerned authorities to consider the cases for grant of compassionate appointment on the posts of Ward Boy, Ward Aaya, OT Attendant, Dhobi, Sweeper, Dresser, Darkroom Attendant, Mali, Cook, etc. On the basis of the said order, a list was prepared and in the said list the name of the petitioner was included, as is evident from the letter dated 30-7-2010 (Annexure - P/3). In spite of the above, the appointment order has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation on 4-12-2010 (Annxure - P/5) for grant of compassionate appointment, which is still pending consideration. Thus, this petiton. 3. |t is an admitted position that the petitioner made a representation on 4-12-2010 and as per the well settled principles of law laid dpwn by the Supreme Court in S. S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya f,^,,....^i;^^ ^&'-Ms. 1 '-^^^""^f .^' ^" 4. 2 Pradesh , a statutory representation or appeal has to be decided within a reasonable time i.e. within 3 to 6 months, but the petittoner without waiting for a reasonable period, has approached this Court straightway, thus the petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a reasonable time in accordance with law and on its own merits. ^ Gowri Sd/- Sati*K.^nl Judge ihotn lii •" l^^r^ ® ' (1989)4SCC582