c IN THE HIGH COURT OF JU^ICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. n 35 / 2004 Petitioners 1. ^S5 ^•^^ f^ ,^^<->-?' ^^y . <^- '\/'^ 'o^-' Respondents ^' ^^ .f\ df Versus 1. ^'u 2. ^n^ f /^^^ ,'^^ ^' ^^^l 3. Smt-Maltibai Kunde W/o Late Shri Puranlal Kunde, Aged about 42 years, R/o Gram Sajapahadh, Tah : Baikuntpur, Dist :'Surguja- (C-.G.) )inesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Puran Kumar Kunde, Aged about 21 years, R/o Gram Sajapahadh, Tah : Baikuntpur, Dist : Surguja- (C.G.) Chhattisgarh state Electricity Board, Through its Chainnari, C.S.E.B. Daganiya, Raipur, Dist : Raipur-(C.G.) The Addidonal Secretary,<;.S.E.Bl Daganiya, Raipur, Dist : Raipur- (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through die Secretary, Home Departiiient, DKS Bhawan, Raipur-(C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2^6/2.^f OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -'^ i.. ; iiii 4. The Union of India, The Chief Secretaiy Human Resorses. Department, New Delhi 5. M.P. STATE ELECRICITY BQARD, Throught its Chairmen,Shakti Bhavan. Rampur .Jabalpur [M.P.] XI-HC-22 3^ r<lNld^, ^T(1<l^<o, Rtdiy^< [^T^sich ^I^CTI sn*iich ^"""""^'"^y^ 200^-. f^re^ 1 M C, W^T^T f^TW^TT^fT lcb<HT^ 5b^lcb<HT^c! ^n^T^<TTW:^f?cT 10-7-2006 Mr. Vijay Deshmukh, counse| for the Mr. A.S. Gaharwar with respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. G.K. Beriwai, Deputy Apvocate General for the State/respondent No.3. No.4. Mr. S.K. Beriwal, Central G iVlr. Vivek Verma, counsel fo^ Heard. The case of the petitionef husband of petitioner No.1 was ^ harness on 18-7-1993. Afterl compassionate appointment with past circuiar and present circu!ai| representations before the appointjng not properiy considered. After No.3 made memo dated 8-7-1995 compasslonats appointment on Petitioner No.1 made represent4t nothing has been responded. !t i^ directed to consider the casel appointment. !n this connection, at the tinhe policy for compassionate appoi^ (Annexure R-1). According to cial an empioyee, wife, son or unmarr| tir^e chi^F^41'ri ^i^i<nT ^f tscft <Ri^i< ^^rf^T3TT^T for the petitioners. Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, counsel for 'vt. Counsei for Union of india/respondent respondent No.5. \s is that father of petitioner No.2 and ^rking as Sweeper in MPEB who died in his death, the petitioner applied for |ali the requirements as prpvided by the dated 1-5-2000. Petitioner No.1 made authority, but her representations were of the petitioners, respondent (Annexure A-3) not granting permission for ground of age and service duration. tions on 7-12-2001 and 4-4-2004, but therefore, prayed that the respondents be of the petltioners for compassionate repl-esentations the |ie of the death of Late Puraniai Kunde, the itment in existence was of 24-3-1990 ise 2 ofthe policy, on the naturai death of ed daughter of that employee was entitled (^y^T) XI-HC-22 3^ '<<!<< i<n<i, ??T{iy<i<o, (s|diy^< [?T^5(<!t» *<l*<dl$b<4icb<<;t%<<*vl"t<v>/><<''^^Pi' 2004~ t'-l^ 3^T^)T f^ri^3TT^fT ^>*TW^^ \ Soma' 311^1 ^WIW^cf ^^_ for compassionate appointment oniy aiready not employed in MPEB and| compieted 15 years of age. Con| compassionate appointment of the and vide communication (Annexure | informed that the case of petitioners| Late Puraniai worked for 29 years 15 years, therefore, as per clause| were not entitied for compassionat aged about 45 years and she is petltioners was not covered under of Late Puraniai. Therefore, the petitioners appolntment cn compassionate g^ rejected by the erstwhiie MPEB, as| writ petjtion, same is liabie to be d| order as to costs. chl^fo4iri ^l^dT^te^^^dK ^^rf^TW^r if the dependante of that empioyee w%^' |that before death, the empioyee has not i|sidering this ciause, the appilcatlon for ^etitioners was considered by the Board •|A-3) dated 8-7-1995, petitioner No.1 was I is not covered under the policy, because !.e, he had aiready worked for more than 2 of the policy of 1990, the petitioners appointment. Moreover, IVlaitibai was liiiiterate. Accordingiy, the case of the ttie poiicy in force at the tlme of the death lare not entitled for consideration of tound and their case has been rightly |such, 1 do not find any substance in this Ismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^l^)