IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUKE AT BILASPUR (C . G.) W.P. No . ^& /2004/ PETITIONER ...sS^S^^ Jeevan Lal Dewangan aged about 29 years S/o Late Shri Mahesnram Dewangan R/o Village & Post Vinayakpur District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS -^ss^ ^^ .>'"y'^^ .. -;::ey^^^V^. 1. State of Chhattisgarh <"'~^/ Through Secretary Department of Energy D.K.S. Bhawan, 9 -^^%fe^.~Raipur(c-G t«y'-' ..•••\'^i'v-.<y\i'&^o-*- ^^fS&Z^ Ci^^^iS^ 2. Chhattisgarh State ^^ ^<3° i\ (v^ Electricity Board -Ti-vs_'sej^-eJ?-'1 Through ±ta ChaJ^maa- Dangania, Raipur ,(C.G. ^ -%?r7o'i,'s^ -^L&_ -AJ r . ! / tTION U/S 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR BSUANCE OF WRITS OF MANDJUlIUS AND CERTIORARY ETC. AND OR FURTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- PARTICOLRAS OF THE PETITIONER:- --f^ i.'t"w./ V~' As stated above in the cause title. ^ \.:fiiS-, '@^a^^°^) 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: /~/^\s^B stated above in the cause title. 3. PARTICUIARS OF THE OKDERS AGA.INST WHICH THE PETITION IS BEING MADE: /' ' ;,' 1 ) ,' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR (C.G.) W.P. No. ^to" /2004/' PETITIONER ...-SSS^ ^^SP^' Jeevan Lal Dewangan aged about 29 years S/o Late Shri Mahesnram Dewahgan R/o Village & Post Vinayakpur District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS \-f:l ..!"\1 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary ^^,'171..,;""^^"*'' Department of Energy ..V-:^^A-^ . •^^y'^^ ^•^y^^^^ 9 •' ^•^*" ..•••''.Zc^ ^"fc1*1"-" v^±- ^^^' D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^-^^s&^ A»* <s'f;~ <!:?>! ^-^ y^<3^ ^ ^y^-''' 2. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board lrcfci..c.-^~~c-^tLc1 'Eo"'1- "•t01iT___U/S ^£o 3» Ma<3hya Pradesb sleetisielty Beiard* Thzough- ISs Seerefcaiy SIiaktA Bhawan Rampur, 3'abalpur <M,P.}. -^.^ \^^v~'s --"UIIL_CERTIORARY ETC.AND gnt.on ®$Zn(*i - ~~ ~—^ — %K)U^ y^__ , PARTICIH.RAS OF THE EBTJ.^^.^.—.. —~*» WSW Belht, As stated above ih the cause title. ^^-f'^^ 2. PARTICUIARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: '^ stated above in the cause title. -<- 3. PARTICULARS OF THE OBDERS AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS BEING MADE: /( XI-HC-22 B» TS( -^wwti,W<Av\e,\^^wy, 311^1 <45ich *<I*ICTI sn*(iq>' ' ^ CTr[ 200 '/- f^% sn^r^ 1?:iN?3n^r sniwHfitT aii^i ^wiwnfia' •ni<ii<"i<n-< <iiiciTftfe<^t<Rfwi< ^isri^iTsn^T ^ rouhd Mr. Anand Pandey, counss! fc^ Mr. A.S. Kachhcwdic, Sovt. Mr. A.S. Scharwar with Mr. No.2. Mr. Vivek Verma, counsel for| Mr. 5.K. Bsi'iwcl, Central ©ov| By this writ petition under A^ petitioner has prayed for directing appointment on cofflpassionate gi which is contrary to Articies 14 A 2 The case of the petitione" ij Mahesh Ram Dewangan wos workin^ on 27-11-1999 and at that time, Workshop Division, Bhiiai-3, Durg. submitted an application to M( compsssionate 9round. Copy of the sent various communications and cor|' P-5.. The petitioner sent a legalnotj No.Z579/2002 in which on 26-3-; consideration the repr'esentation oi\ Repiy of respondent No.3 r the petitioner. dvocats for the Stcite/respondent No.l. >awcn Shrivastava, counsei for respondent Eiectricity Board with effeet fr^om ©overnmentorder dsted 15-4-2001 Irespondent No.3. '|1'. Counsei for respondent No.4. ^t'cle 226 of the Constltution of Indic, the \he respondent Board to give the petitioner and quashing the circular Annexure P-2, of the Constitution of India. that the petitioner's fcrther naroeiy, Lste in the erstwhiie MPEB, he d'ed in harness he was workin9 as Lineman st Surur in IThe petitioner, on the demise of his father, pEB seeking empioyment in MPEB on application is Annexure P-4. The petitionsr respondences copies ofwhich are Annexure jce on 30-7-2002. The petitioner fii'ed W.P. this Court directed the respondents to the oetitioner. AAPEB is that after bifurcstion of the 15-11-2000 and os per the Central assets, liabilities and employees have been (<te^^) 2C&4 XI-HC-22 3^ -^WMf, wS\W , [sldiuy STT^;srqsrei LJ.P.1 »iIHWT aiHicn Wi; 2004- Rl'b^ SII^T q^ R-fi«h3n^T stiiwtrf^cT ^HT^) sn^T^nwgfer 2- »l<<f<'l<fl-ft|llclT^'teA<Rl«K ^?3ri^T3TI^T divided therefore, lisbility of the pe been duiy forwarded to the Additi dcted 22-1-2002 wherein the ccse o' Repiy of CSEB is thst as per| titioner is upon CSEB, as such, the case hcs |ona! Secretary, CSEB, Raipur vide letter f the petitioner is at seriai No.67. the policy for compassionate sppointment ed 28-2-2004, dependants of thfsse empioyees who died on or cfter-15-11- 2000 are sntitled for appointment^ on compassionats bssis and before thst CSEB is not liable for appointment. I haye heard learned eounse1 ^or the psrttss. Father of the petitioner diec^ in harness on 27-11-1999 whils workinq as Lineman at Surur- in W'Qrkshop Divjsion, Bhilai-3, Durg, and therecfter, as is evident from Annexure P-5, th Ih compsssioncta appointment on 13' cnd the petitioner was not a| eommunications to vsrious authoriti bifurcatea with effect from 15-11- that date. The. coae of the petitioi the father of the petitioner wos wo^ When the petitioner's father died a^ petitioner' moved an appiication for [Decembsr, 1999, the case was "eg'isier'ed ipointed, therefore, he made vorious i|es. However, in the mean time, MPEB was EOOO cnd CSEB came into existence from ler was transferred by MPEB to CSEB,as \kmg 'm the territoris! jurisdiction of CSEB. ^d the petitioner s'pplisd for compossionate appointment in the yeor' 1999, the p^iiicy regarding compassionate appointment tth dcted 30" January, 1997 wss in foi\'ce, as such, the case of the petitioner was to be considered in the liaht of the fc death of the petitioner's fsther oticy which was 'm force on the date of the th However, the application of the pe'f e. the policy dated 30'" Jsnuary, 1997. tioner eouid not be considered and in the mean time, CSEB came into existenc|fe w.e.f. 15-11-2000. (<ft^y^) XI-HC-22 *<|tinTsni|c») 3^ •<(1<41<1<<, ®T)1u'l(o,fs|('flti^< ^..Q^./^^ ,^ IclM SII^TW {?:lNi3II^T stiii'owfN' Stlllt) 3(1^1 ^WIWdfecT qii<<I<a<fl-i iiiMT^'fe^ <.R|WK ^ari^TTsn^r IJnder sub-section (4) of Se| 2000, the assats and licbilities and| :tion 58 of the AA.P. Reorgonisotion Aet, empioyees of undivided Board are to be th distribu+sd Gmong MPEB snd CSE^. Vlde order- dated 6"' Jonuai'y, 2004, Sover-nment of India, Ministry of P^ mentioned that representotives of U ivier, issued an order in which it has bsen oth the States agreed in a meeting taken by ths Secretor)' (Power) on 20 MJirch, 2003, that the division of employeas wouid be in iine with poiicy ado[)ted for division of employess of MP ©ovemmsnt. In para 2, it has be^en mentioned that the mstter hss been considerad and in partiai modificaton of provisionci order dated 12 April, 2Q01, so far as relatin9 to the divisi^n of empioyees it has been decided finoily to divids t.he posts and employees oift the tines foliowed by DOPTfor aiiocation of post and empioyees of the State^ fiovsrnment of erstwhiie Msdhya Pradesh for msking aiiocstion of posts ond ^srsons to the successor Elsctrscity Board of MPEB on ths principie that pos'i successor State moy be aliotted to| s relatcble to territorial jurisdiction of c respective Stotes and similcrly employees bston9'i"9 To sucn suo Stats teyri^orial ccdres bein9 a!ioccted to concerned Stcte Qnd only dividing ths remain n9 posts and employees betwsen the two States, the Sovernment of India l^ss decided to appoint c 3 niembers State Advjsory Committee to be headed b{/ ths same person who was the Chairman of SAC appointed by &OPT for Madhy^ Pradesh. Tnerefore, on this principis the amployees of SAPEB who were wc Chhattisgarh are to be aiiocatel rking in the territory of newly crested d to the successor ChhattiS9arh 5tate Electr-icity Board on the principle 4"d line followed by &OPT for a!location of (•fl^y^) XI-HC-22 111MI ShHltt) 3^'^rraRTiT, wTfly'Ks, Riciiti^ ^..^.•.^-.n^^L '•v'^ 200^- R<)<A / sn^r^r R-fi+sn^r sti'm* -yfsa ;3m; aii^i 6«]iwflf?g' -^l posts and employees of the Stste (^overnment of erstwhile Stffte of 'nKlfd'ifl-f tllll-lTfffel^ ifSf'WK ^>3rf^IT3n^T The father.of the pstitione" juas working at Bhi!ai, therefore, he wos to be aliocated to CSEB and since he ^ucss workin9 in the territory of CSEB, as such the rssponsibility lies on the sfioulder-s of CSEB to consider" the case of ths petitioner for compassionate apjiointmant. That is vshy, MPEB trGnsfsrrad the case of ths pstitioner regardin^ compassionate appointment to CSEB, as msntionec! 'm the reply of MPEB. T|her'efore, the petitioner's case wss to be considered as per the policy dated [30 January, 1997 and any policy framed thereafter, i.e. the policies of 200^ or 2002 are not sppiicable in the case of fhe petitioner, cs ct the time of cpjjlication of the petitioner and death of the father of the petitioner, the policy jiated 30 Jsnusry, 1997 was in existence, as such his application ou9ht to hav^ been considsred on the basis of ths ssid policy. Evsn the Stste of Chhatti^garh, which cams into existence on 1-11- 2000, has tsken a decision that dep4ndants of those employees, who died on or after l-11-1997 and were working in entitied for compassionste Qppointn^ent. Accordingly, the petition ofl ippointment in the iight of the polic the existing territory of Chhsttisgarh, srs the petitioner iff silowed Qnd respondent No.2 CSEB >s directsd to consider ^a cass of the petitioner for compassionate / doted 30'" January, 1997. Parties sre sntitlad for certi|fied copy of this order. Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge l!f ^/ .^ ^: 4)A^(yi)) ' ^o Kj^y^ y^w