1 i u ,J r.\ t^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO.^66 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER IUj.SR ^ m /^^ ' ?'/%^^' J/^^.^ ^c- .as6" ^ ^.^.y. .....^r?'7-^^ ^•^...-^' ^^>!^-^ ^•--^u' ' VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1) / ^.3 2) :3) :4) :5) :6) Mohammad Irfan Shaikh , S/o Late Shri Shaikh Iqbal , aged about 35 years R/o Bhartiaya Nagar , near Masjid , Bilaspur , Tah & Distt. Bilapiir. Union of India through Secretaiy , Department of Persoruiel & Training, Govt. Of India , New Delhi. State of Madhya Pradesh acting through Secretary , Transport Department , Govt. of M.P. ,Valabh Bhavan, Bhopal. State of Clihattisgarh actmg through Secretary ,Transport Department , D.K..S. Bhavan , Raipur. Transport Commissioner Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. Transport Commissioner, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur . Regional Transport Officer Raipur. -;'S?i-l- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQK OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPRQPRIATE WRIT / WRITS, ORDER / ORDERS DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS ETC. ^^. \ r-HC—78 ^1^ ' ,S'7V B-ST ^W^^ 'S'SfWS, ^viwy ^^.M4:.^..:..z\^c..... 3TI^T '^^ ('^f^p) sn^i'^iiR'nq? ^ansn^Tyqw ^ ^itl !^..ll- . • SfSt' /n- 's^nwdfei 3)1^1 us Shri Ankush Mishra, counsel ftjir the petitioner. Shri Kashlf Shakee!, counset fi|ii Shri Siddharth Rathore, couns^l for respondents No. 2 and 4. Shri Praveen Das, Govt. Advoij;aSe for respondents No. 3, 5 & 6. With the consent ofthe partiesi Case of the petitioner is that h|s father iate Shaikh iqba! had died on 27.06.1999 and the compassionaie the death had taken place after 1.11 for compassionate appointment. Counsel for the State does n( 'KMh'ilf 'qTO?ff'? fest tFi|<<!< ^aifgiTsn^i nt No. 1 the matter is heard flnaily. appointment has been denied to the petitloner on the basis ofthe policy d^ted 10.6.2003 according to which the cut off date which was applied by the |State Government was of 1.11.2000. Counsel for the petitioner spbmits that subsequently, the State Government has made an amendmejit in the poiicy on 2.2.2006 and as per the said policy now the State Gover^ment is considering the cases where 1997 onwards; therefore he is entltied |t dispute above factua! positlon of the case, he submits that let the petitio^er makes a fresh representation and the same would be considered dfresh bv the Sfate Government In |s disposed of with a directlon to the Tf accordance with existing policy. Accordingly, the writ pefition j' petitlonerto file fresh application alon^ wlth the copy ofthis order before the .! competent authority within four weeits from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the same wouid be decidec! by the authorities concerned within a further period of four months froqi the date of its receipt strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Dwaker Judge