T'F^;:-;.^?'^?'-^^^^^^^^^)'??^'^,^^ ;~^- -,:t> K1 y^^^s^' ---""6''rc.^!f'v""" .,..•••" ^••""".,^•'•\"?\£...••-" v'- ^\0. »<-,c"<leo Kya'- A^STHE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONNO.c^/^ / 2006 «, PETITIONER .0^ .<--*t ^%> :Ramesh Ku. Verma S/o Late Shyamlal Verma Aged about 33 years, NutanColony,Q.No-I-10 Dsit- Bilaspur(C.G) Versus RESPONDENTS Sii 'il?'."rf'r'<-/:' -^" 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Legal Ministry . Department ofLaw, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) T^a fa^taA'st-i"^^^- d? 2. ^ District & Session Judge Establishment Section District- Bilaspur (C.G) WRIT PETITLONjUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN_THE MATTER. HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.210 of 2006 Petitioner Ramesh Ku. Verma S/o Late Shyamlal Vsrma, Aged about 33 years, Nutan Colony, Q. No.1-10, Distt-Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Legal Ministry, Department of Law, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Establishment of District & Session Judge, Estabiishment Section, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondents WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF Single Bench :- Hon'bte Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present:- Shri H.S. Ahiuwaiia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate forthe respondent No. 1/State. None appears for the respondent No. 2. ORDER (Passed on this 21 day of June,2007) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was denied appointment on compassionate basis on the ground that his younger brother, namely, Suresh Kumar Verma is a Government employee. Before death of fatherof the petitioner his brother started residing separately. 2. This Court bythe judgment and order dated 27.6.2006 passed in W.P. No. 3569/2005 (Ku. Joyti Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) held as under:- "Now the question that the brother of the petitioner is already empioyed as Clerk in the Education Department, therefore, she is not entitted for the compassionate appointment is eoncerned, in the rejoinder it has been mentioned that he was residing separately with his mother and not with his father along with petitioner, therefore, same cannot be taken 4. to be a ground forrefusing compassionate appointment to her" • - - ' •• - :-::^,;-~. : • ! ' In vlewofclearfinding ofthis Court, the respondent No.2 is direeted to conduct necessary enquiry in this regard and consider the ease of the petitioner in accordance w h the Government pblicy and also in accordance with the judgment and order passed in the case of Ku. Joyti Agrawal (supra), within a period of threemonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly atlowed. No order as to cots. Sd/- S.K. Agnihotri Judge B/ ^-•••..... "~^. -^;;^