" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. CHHATTISTGARH at BILASPUR. WRIT PETITIONNCMfe^/2006. PETITIONER .o^. ^l y_:.- * .^ ^^^' ^<eiy,A.--" '^" ^•/ Pradeep Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri. Ranbir Singh Aged around 33 years, Unemployed Residing at: Near Goura Chowara, Ward No. 10, Shankar Nagar, DTIRG-490001 (CG). 'vss. ^^^h^- "•' )—''fe»3'^^a VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. STEEL AUTHOMTY OF INDIA LTD, Through : Its Chairman, Steel Authority oflndia Ltd. Lodhi Road, Ispat Bhawan, NEW DELm-110011. €«Ts7»S^ """'^^ frs!^}\ &^Vy'Vrl ^.^-"y 2. BH3LAI STEEL PLANT, Through : Its Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, BHILAI - 490001 District: Durg (CG). 3. The Assistant Manager ^- (Personnel) Recruitment Section, Bhilai Steel Plant, BHILAI - 490001 District: Durg (CG) u- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226' / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF^ INDIA FOR J'HE ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE ORDER AND DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARY, MANDAMUS ETC, XI-HC-78 3T1^TqiTl^lNi TOT 311^1 sbKI* z +11*1(11 ai*11th 3^'?nqRra-, »TTl*ns, Ric-iitiy ^..^.^...^.^200^ W^l 4^<*i ('i'1'^^) SRnwHferw^ 19-6-2 *i«I<-l4l4wRft'ffte^<fegr ^grf^Tsn^T Heard Mr. B.P. Rao, couns^l for the petitioner. By the instant writ petition ijnder Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed th4t respondent No.3 be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for comijiassionate appointment on account of the retirement of the petitioner's fatheri The case of the petitioner on medical ground. is that the father of the petitioner was employed as OfRce Assistant in th^ EPS Electrical Construction Department of Bhilai Steel Plant (respondent|No.2). Subsequently, the father of the petitioner suffered from certain mefital diseases, stomach problems ete.. He was treated at Bhilai Steel Plant ^ospital for a long time and ultimateiy, he was declared Permanent Medical Jnfit for the job by the Medical Board of Bhilai Steel Plant. Based on that, t^e petitioner's father was terminated from the duties on 31-12-1998 and on t^at basis, thepetitioner's father submitted an application for compassioi|iate appointment of the petitioner. Unfortunately, the father ofthe peti|ioner passed away on 1-12-2000. Even after fhe lapse of 6-7 years, the res^ondents have not considered the case of the petitioner, whereas, as per th^ July, 1979,applicable in the Steel| petitioner is entitled for compassion^ Memorandum of Agreement dated 29 Authority including the respondents, the rte appointment. Learned counsel for the pelptioner submitted that on similar ground number of persons have been ap| whereas, the case of the petitionei application submitted by the fath appointment of his son. Therefore, the application of the father of the the matteilg ?ointed on compassionate appointment, is not being considered in spite of the ^r of the petitioner for compassionate |the respondents be directed toconsider ^etitioner and pass appropriate order in XI-HC-78 ^wwi sb*<|cb TEg' -^ww^, ^v'16, Ri<riitiy< .y.:^.2.-s.se/. 1/ ^ 200^ 3<i^.i?i Mach (yt3'!«<si) 3Ti^r?irf?^N; (TSlT3I7^?Tsht< /s Soma WctTSITHfecTST^r •SL- Having heard learned coun the petition and the documents, th fair and reasonable. Therefore, application submitted by the appointment of his son and pass the case of the petitioner for compi the policy of respondent No.1 . With the direction aforesaid, Parties are entitled for certifi tel for the petitioner and having perused prayer made by learned counsel is just, re^pondent No.3 is directed to scrutinize the petitioner's father for compassionate |final order on the application considering ^ssionate appointment, in accordance with t>i<iF<i<fl-< Hi*«-il'^'"tetfl'<Ri«i< ^sTl^iran^r the petition stands djsposed ot sd copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^ V y 1