\ 9W Q IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. No 0&3? /2oo4 f W //® , 1%” S/o Late Shri Dindayal Verma X R/o Village & Post Selud District—Durg (C.G.) Q. Q VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Energy D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board 1R4? n} Wkly m glowtomf w‘wyw e3,liw Through Dangania, Raipur (C.G.) U/S 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR S OF WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARY ETC. AND ‘HER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- PARTICULRAS OF THE PETITIONERz- As stated above in the cause title. As stated above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDERS AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS BEING MADE: Jaw/® IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.)i w.P. No¢€li§ /2004 / ,5 ‘ i»\ ‘N s PTITIONER i, ,k\A&DAeordh_ar W N a&”£yalPradesh Electxicity maxd. Qhrough it itg 3ectetary Shakti Bhawan Rampum :1aba1pur {mm} / magma o£ xnéia mmugh - i’ha Se¢xetary Deparmant/ Minimry o5 the PWer, Raw Delhi. PARTICULRAS d As Stated abq “Ewamw PARTICULARS G ———.——’— v ; As stated ab€ 1 PARTICULARS PETITION Is i 3 / Q E M . IE ‘ Mr. Anand Faraday, counsel for ffhe pefifioner. Mr. A.5. Kachhawahc, Govt Advocafe for- me Sfafe/r‘esponden? No.1. Mr. A45. éoharwar wh‘h Mr. Pawan Shrivas‘l‘ava, counsel for respondenf No.2. Mr. Vivek Verma, counsel for respondeni’ No.3. Mr. 5.K. Beriwal, Cenfra! 60v? Caunse! for respondem' No.4. By 'rhis wrif pew-ion under Article 226 of The Consfi‘ru‘rion of India, fhe pefifioner has prayed for a direc‘riqn respondenf No.2 ’i'o cansider fhe case of the peti‘l‘ioner‘ for compassiona‘re apg‘ oinfmen‘l‘ and quash The circulars dafed 1— 3—2002 and 28—2-2004. The case of 'l'he pe'l-i'l'ioner is fhal- his fafher La‘l‘e Dindayal Var-ma was working as Aflendanf Grade-I in W rkshop Division, Bhilai—3, Durg and he died in harness on 1341—1999. On f e demise of his fafher, The peiifioner submif‘l‘ed an applicaiion for compas iona’re appoinfmeni fa fhe ersfwhile MPEB (Annexure P-4) on 17-12-1999. How ver, fhaf applica‘l‘ian remain pending and no final decision was faken. In fhe me Time, on accouni' of reorganisai'ion of i‘he Sfafe of Modhya Pradesh with ffec‘r from 141-2000, MPEB was also bifurcai'ed w.e.f. 15-11-2000 and f om fhaf daie CSEB came info exisfence. Thereafi'er, +he new policy dafed 28 2-2004 was formulai'ed by CSEB. As per rhe reply of CSEB, he case of The pei'i'iioner has no? been considered on ihe ground 'rha‘l- as p r The policy da‘l'ed 28-2-2004, dependants of +hose employees who died on or offer 15-11-2000 are enfii-led for compassionafe appointment \. ’ (diodes) / i 1" L. V—rf‘. XI—HC—22 mm W mam WW WW mmw mma‘ww swm 11-?-2006 XI—HC—ZZ HW,W¢;W ® mmw ~ 2- in para 10 of fhe reply of res Thu? cm farma?ion of CSEB 1‘he case CSEB on 22-1-2002, wherein fhe pefifioner's name appears a? serial No.73. . I have heard harried caunsel ‘ Unaer sub—section {4) of Se 2000, “rhe assefs and Habilifies and disfribufed amang MPEB and CSEE‘. Governmem’ of India, Minisi'ry of Pi mem‘ioned 1'ha1- represenfa‘rives of k by fhe Secremry (Power) on 20““ M‘ would-be in -iine wifh palicy ado Government. in para 2, it has been menfioned ihaf The mmter has been on of provisional order dafed 12* April, 3n of employees i’r has been decided finaliy i The lines followed by DOPT for ollocaTion GovernmenT of ersfwhile Madhya Pradesh rsons to The successor ElecTricii'y Board of MPEB on The principle Thof posT relaTable To TerriTorial jurisdicfion of a successor STaTe may be alloTTed To respecTive 5TaTes and similarly employees l j belonging To such sub STaTe TerriT rial cadres being allocaTed to concerned S'l'afe and only dividing The remaini g‘ posTs and employees befween The Two STaTes, The GovernmenT of India h s decided To appoinf a 3 members STaTe Advisory CommiTTee To be headed b The some person who was The Chairman of SAC appoinTed by DOPT for Madhy Pradesh. Therefore, on This principle The \ considered and in par‘i'iai modifica‘i 2001, so far as reia‘iing ‘io fhe divisi To divide ‘ihe posfs and empioyees ov of posf and employees of The Sia‘ie for making allocaTion of posTs and 3onden‘i’ No.3 MPEB, if has been mentioned of The pei‘i'i‘ioner has been Transferred to :or ‘i‘he parties. cfion 58 of The MP. Reorganisa‘i‘ion Acf, empioyees of undivided Board are ‘i'o be Vide order dai’ed 6” January/ 2004, I Myer, issued an order in which i‘i' has been ioi‘h ihe Sfafes agreed in a meefing faken zrch, 2003, fhaf fhe division of employees ri'ed for division of empioyees of MP \ i (dioW) XI-HC-22 mmal%a > WWh'MW -37 agwm empioyees of MPEB who were wcr-king 'm fhe Terrifory 9f newly creafed Chhaf‘risgarh are 1‘0 be alloc'm‘zd fo The successor Chhm’fisgarh stafe Elecfricify Boar-d on fhe principle and iine foliowed by DOPT for aliocafion of > pas‘rs and empioyees of The Sfafe 9over‘nmenf of ersfwhiie S‘i'a're of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, in view of fhe above, services of fhe pe‘rifioner‘s fafher were fo be oiiocm‘ed ‘?o CSEB, as he wo working in ‘rhe ?err‘i1‘oriai jurisdiction of CSEB, as such, fhe Habiii'h/ regard ng compassionafe oppoini'men? Hes m “the shouiders of CSEB. On simiiar iine, ven ‘fhe Sfafe of Chhaffisgarh' which came info exisfence on 1-11—2900, has en a decision fhc? dependan‘rs of ‘ihose empioyees, who died on or offer ferrifory of Chha‘i‘fisgarh, are enf i principie applies fo CSEB also. compassionafe oppoini‘men‘i, fhe iicy dated 30’“ January, 1997 was in exisfence. Therefore, his case ou hf fo have been considered on fhe basis of fhe' poiicy exisfing when fhe pefifio er made appiica‘iion and his fafher died. In his case, fhe new policy canno‘i‘ be p essed info service. Accordingly, the pefifion o fhe pe‘iifioner is aiiowed and respondeni' No.2 CSEB is direcfed fo consider case of fhe pefi‘iioner for compassionate appoini'meni' in fhe iigh'i' of fhe pol k 1-1997 and were working in The exis‘iing ied for compassionate appoinfmen‘i. Same en‘fhe pefi'iioner moved applied-ion for o e dafed 30*“ January, 1997. Par-fies are en‘ri‘Hed for ceri‘ fied copy of This order. 1 h i