1 Slsiste Bei ^"^ ^t^ ^ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. 4^ /2009 PETITIONER: iiiaas Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/0 Late Ratan Lal Yadav aged about 26- years, R/0 in front ofVrindavan School, ward no. 2, Imlibhatha, Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1) State ofChhattisgarh The Secretary Home Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Director General ofPolice, Police Head Quarter Raipur (C.G.) The Inspector General Of Police (Administration) Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) The Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER AURTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The above named Petitionerrespectfully submits as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONEB—- BLGH CQIJRT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRFT PETITION CS'i No. 4294 of2009 Sanjay Kumar Yadav. VERSUS . State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WMT PETmON UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THECONSTmjFK)NCTJNDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deput^- Govemment Advocate for fhe State/ Respondents. OKDER(ORAL) (Passed on 23ro day of Novemba-, 2009) With the coasent ofleamed counsel appearing tbr Ae parties. the matter S. . *>/ A -^ Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner suhmits that the petitioner is the son of Late Ratan Lal Yadav, who died on 22 June.2004 (Aimexure P/2), while working as Constable in the Police Department, in faamess. The petitioner made an appiication for compassionate appointment'. The application of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 30 July, 20(® (Annexure P/l) on the ground that his elder brother is already in employment. Shri Maheshwari fiirther submits that the elder brother ofthe petitioner have been living separately before the death of the deceased fatlier. This Court, by the judgment atid order dated 27 Juae, 2006, passed in W.P. No. 3569 of 2005 (Ku. Jyoti Agrawal. v. State of Cfiha sgarh & Others\ observed as under: "Now the question that the brother of tfae petitionei' is already employed as Clerk iii the Education Department, therefore, she is not entitled for flie eompassionate appointment is concemed, in the rejoinder it has been mentioned tliat he was r^iding separatelv with his mother and not with his father aiongwidi the petitioner, therefore, same cannot be takea to be a ground for refusing compassionate appointment to her." 3. In view of 1he clear faidmg of this Court, the respondents/authorities are directed to conduct necessary enquay m this regard and eonsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Govemment policv and also in accordance with the judgment and order passed in the case of Ku. Jyoti Agrawal (supra), within a period ofthree aionths from the date ofreceipt of a copy oftfais order. 4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .-iirui