ih' •:• '•!':;: llilliil j :i^:i ^,-'^^. ur IN THE HIGH COURT'OF^JUDICATURE GHHATTISGARH AT •^BILASPUR W.P.NO. l©'::^5r72005 / Petttioner .^". 1rr ^i.^y Snit.RashrBi Rokade %?/o Late Suresh Kumar Rokade, Aged about 38 years, R/o; C/o Syraj Prasad: Sureji, Tulsipur, Rajnandgaon,, Dist : Rajnandgaan-(C.G.) s<6sur ^-<"i '^•'\Vr Versus Respondents ^i^^M '^ State pf CKhattisgarh Ttirou^i TKe Seeretary Wafer Resouree' Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) fhe Sieci-etary GeEteral' Administeative ^Deparlnient, Mantrs&ya,: El.K.S Shawan, Raipyr, Oist : .Raipnr-p.G.) : l''Ffae;,E§T.^e(;retary i • . |:Cl3|)p"e(ii^aghw^ ]%^t;ejKg^e|soui;ee;:j: Beparfment,, |Et®§j|@HawaDi,: iRaS)uri|(2.Gr.):: ; ^ ^ Raipuit, Dist'; K^^^ ^ ~^s^ isi^ ^?" ^^ :"Eae;<%Hecif6r, ;KSlEian^^jon,:; ^ : • . j , ,': :;; lEiisfia^lgii.aHdgaon-tC.G.) , i ;. il'h.el'Otitef^Ei'igneer Mahanadi ui {y^la^®^''.'pPariyojna, ,: .Water |; ? |ffis@fflr<|e'Bepartment,iRa.ipur, j^ |E)is| t3%aipur-(CSG.): i . i'Tilaei CSiiefEsecuitivG OffiEgr, ;'IStbat''^|®n^n£ermg"I•S^ffi.eei: |: Bi¥isiQtt,'Sajnandgaon, Eatnandgaon-(C|.G.) 'Statssi^M.^MasS^a-^ 'STaSEsh :fBiismgft'.fhe'iSecretarylWatgF| j [Wsgourge ^iIia^laaIa^'l'VaUyMi' BlaSjw^ ®Ho0al4®ist ::'®hopa-(ffiP. Disti: wm 1^11^1. tBBI !.^s -i^ f. m s w iaiii sW i!t•i;ti 311 QSS' (2) Union of India, Through the ChiefSecretaiy Department of Personal & Training & Public ©Tievarices, Shastri Marg, New Delhi WRIT PETITION UNDERARTIGLE 228'/ 227 OFTHE CQNSTTTUnDN OF INDIA s? XI-HC-78 tTW^I ShHIW TST ^IWM-H, wS\W'\<a, RlCll^y ^.T-.J.^.^ 20<^ 3<1^1 4d* ('i?^3^ET) sn^rqiTf^iN; cP[r3TI^TsbH s^nwHfersn^T 23-8-2006 Mr. Deepak Jain, counsel for| Mr. Sumesh Bcyqj, ©ovt. on advance copy. Heard both the counsel. By this writ petition under A| the pstitioner has challenged the No.3, whereby the prayer of appoirrtment has been rejected on 7-4/02/1-3 ddted 10-6-2003 the p| appointment. The case of the petitioner is| Kumar Rokade was working as Assis 11-1999. Thereafter, the petitionej 24-5-2000. However, the applicot^ the impugned order. It is admitted position that eariier policy that the legal heirs a| 2000 or thereafter are entitled policy has been changed and no«v, the legal heirs of Sovernment efflf^ entitled for compassionate oppointn Therefore, in view of the 2003 is illegai and the respondents Advlocate >ppointn|ent qiraferft^ireff&'fe^ tRr^ ^sif^rrsn^T the petitioner. for 1+ie State/respondents No.l to 6, "ticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, oi^der dated 6-11-2003 passed by respondent the petitioner re9ardin9 compassiondte t|ie 9round that as per the notification No.F- ttitioner is not entitled forcompassionQte that husband of the petitioner Late Suresh 1'ant Srade-II and he died in harness on 10- applied for compassionate appointment on )on of the petitioner hos been rejected by how, the State &overnment has revised its Sovernment employees who died on l-11- for compassionate appointment. The said State ©overnmenthas issued order that |oyees who died on or after l-11-1997 are tKe attove changed po!iey, the order dated 6-11- are directed to consider the application of ^ XI-HC-78 tTTO^TT 8itTT<sK 5ST '<<1<<10<1, tjiTny'IS, (slflltty .^-.^.(.^^ 200^ 3||^| 4ach ('i?!!^'5"^) sn^T^irf^ri^ (PIT an^T sbtil=ti •~^ •Soma 4 ?T<nWg%cT3TOS:CT , the petition stands disposed of. the petitioner for compassionate 4ppointment, in accordance with the revised policy. With the direction aforesai^, Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.8^7/200S and I.A.No.1981/2005 olso stand disposed of. > Parties are entitled for certffied copy of this order. Sdf- L.C.Bhadoo Judge *iit<'i<fl.< Tmaf ^' fecA- <.(Sitriit ^sri^TSll^T