&^3'/ THKHON'BLEHIGfflGOBRTOE CHHATTIGARH.AT W.PS.—^9X5—-/2009 : ? Aful Kiunar M S/0 Late Pramod: Kymar Aged abouf 19 ^^ Y^ R/o yillage Kanhari P.0. Suktara Tehsil and Dist. Mandala (M.P) , Versus. , ; , • :.' . • .:,. :' KBSPONDENTS f3-Zf State'ofGUliattisgarh Thrpugh;' Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya D.K.SlBhayanRa^pur(C.G) Tlie Commissioner Directorate of Public Education Department :R^ur.(G.G)1,./:.,•.:,,•.^,,,:.',, Districf Edueation Qfficer AmbiltapurSarguja(C.G) District Education, OfBeer KaNrdham , DisNct Kabirdfiam ((s.a,s.:.;l-'.;:.;;if.'.::' BfflETI1S]ET©NiafI(®aEaRa'I@EEj22igC)I';'THE; ©wsti'isiErei© '»®]^ ffTHT'PFTTTTONT'n •] .1' HIGI-i COURTOF QMI-IATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRITPETITIQN (S)N.O 2949 OF 2009 PETItlONER Atul KumarlVlaravi ^ RESPONDENT5 Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others '. '',t;. (Writ Petition under Artiele 226 of the Constitutioh oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'bile Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. . Present:- Shri R.K, Sharma,,AdvoQateforthepetitioner. '• Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate forthe State. PRDER(ORAL) . (PasSedont^u|9thdayofMay, 2011) ^eard learned counsel forljie parties. .'/••" By this petition, the petitjeftier seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider tlie case of the petitioner for grant of compassionateappointment. 1-earned counsel appearip'g for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner namety; Pramod Kumar (since deceased) while workjng as Assistant Teacher in the respQndent department died on 3-11-2006 in harness. Accorcling to the peljfioner, at the time of death of his father t^e petitioner was nol:, major. HoweVer, he moved an application on 2Q-12-20i3l6, but the sgme was not cbnsidered by the respondent authorities perhaps on the ground that the petitiGiner had notattainecKhe ageofmajority. ~. , Learned counsel. further ,submits that the petitioner moved another appljeation on attaining the age of majority i.e. oi') 20-6-2008. The sarne has not been considered by the respondent authorities.on fhe ground^that as per ;ttie circular ,elated 2-2-2006 the piefitioner ;was .required t6 .make an application for grant of eompa^jj^ate appointment withiw a'; ^t period of six months from the date of death of the deceased employee. Thus, this petition. kearned counsel appearing for the State submits that in view ofthe circulardated 2-2-2006, the dependent ofthe deceased employee is required to submit the-application form for grant of compassionate appointment within a period 6f six months. The said circular was considered by this Court in umpteen number of cases withapproval. 1 heard learned counselappearing forthe parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The first application was filed on 20-12-2006, which was well within the stipulated period of six months. The same was not considered and it appears that the same was pending consideration. Thereafter, on attaining the age of majority second application was rrioved by the petitioner on 20-6-2008. Thus, it cannot be held that the petitioner has not movedany application within thestipulated period,as the first application dated 20-12-2006 was pending consideration before the respondent authorities when the petitioner attainedthe age of majority. The whole object of anyx;ompassi6nate appointment scherne is to give succor to the family t6 tide over the sudden finanGial crisis befallen on the dependants on aGCOunt of untimely demise of itssole earnihg member. (See : Haryana State Ele.cthcity Board and another v. Hakim Singh and Krishna Kishore Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, & Others2). ' (1997)8SCC85 2 WP (S) No. 1549 of 201 1 (decided on 22-3-2011) . ..:.-s;3e? ^ A ^. A \"!ai^ ^^TT-^T 8. Gowri In view of theabove, if the first application dated 20-12-2Q06 has not been rejected before filing of the secohd application dated 20-6-2008, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the application dated 20-12-2006 read with the application dated 20-6-2008filed by the petitioner, as the first applicationwas fOed by fhe petitioner within a period of six months from the. date of death of his father, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a cppy of this order. In the result, the writ petitionis allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto aosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge