^^l^ r-^ A.(C-R\. c^ SLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA. C.J. •J. iagendra Singh Parihar, S/o Late ihiv Singh Parihar, aged about 22 ears, R/Q Viliage S Post Nirjam, 'ahsii Mungeli, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretsry, Department of Health, D.K.S. Bhawan, RaipurfC.G.) 2. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through : Secretar/, Department of th, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. The Commissioner, Health Seryices, Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopai 4. Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief M District Biias /"^ pur ti-'.u.j The Collector, Bilasour, District Silaspur (C.G.) Writ Appeai Under Section 2(1) ofthe Chhattisgarh Hiah Coyr fAppeal to Division Bench) Act. 2006 0 Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel forthe sppellant. Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for resoondents No,1,4,5 & 6/State. Mh The foilowing judament of the Court was passed by ^ ipta, C.J Learned counsel forthe parties are heard on admission. 2. Appeiiant - Nagendra Singh Parihar has Tited this wri1 appea! against the order dafed 04-02-2008, passed in Vv'.P.(S1 No.733/2008. 3. Appellant/petitioner had foilowinci reiiefs: fiied the writ petition for "1. That, the Hon'bie Court may kindly be pleased to cail the entire records relating to the case of the petitioner for compassionate appoiniment. 2. That, .the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 27.07.1006 i.e. Annexure P/1. 3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pieased to further direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 4. Any appropriate writ direction or order may also be granted in favour of the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deems flt In the circumstances of the case. 5. Cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner." f^ '& fs' ® 4. AppellanVpetitioner, thus, in substance was seeking a dirsction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment. 5. Learned Single Judae 'netd that the petitioner's father died in the year 1985 and the petitioner for the first time applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2005. Following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State ofJ&K and Others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in (2006) 5 SCC-766 and distinguishing the judgment of the Apex Court in t'ne case of tohan Mahto vs. M/s. Central Coal Fleld Ltd. & Ors., reported earned counse! for ths ed the impugned ordei in 2807 ASR SCW 6060, reiied upon petitioner, the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 6. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsei for the appellant placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors. (supra) vehementiy argued that the learned Singie Judge has erred in rejecting the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment. 7. 1{ is not in dispute that the petitioner for t'ne first time applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2005 i.e. after about 20 years of the death of hls father in the year 1985. The Apex Court in the case of Stofe of J&K and Offiers vs. Saja< observed in para 17 as "17. In the case on hand, the father of the appiicant died in Marc'n1987. The application was made by the applicant after four-and-3-half years in .•s^si 4sy<» i\y' ^ ^ ^ 1 *s ^-€^ ^a.F-i^' September 1991 which was rejected in March 1996. The writ petition was filed in June 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July 2000. W'nen the Division Bench decided the matter, more than_fifteen vears had_passed from the date of the death of t'ne father of the applicant. The said fact was_lndeed a relevant and material fact which went to show that the familv survived in spite of the death of the employee. Moreover, in our opinion, the iearned Single Judge was also right in hoiding that though the order was passed in 1996, it was not challenaed bv the applicant immediatelv. He took chance of challenging the order in 1999 when there was inter-departmentai communication in 1 999. The Division Bench, in our view, hence ought not to have aliowed the appeal." 8. The dictum of the Apex Court relied upon by leas counset vs. M/s. i3%?inni ii appeiiant/petitioner in the case of Mol Coal Field Ltd. & Ors. (supra) has k by the iearned Single Judge in para 9 of impugned order which contains the fotlowing sound reasons: "Q.The judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. in the case of Mohan Mahto (supra); the Nationai Coal Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A.) provides t'nat the male dependent of concerned worker, 15 years and above in age, wii! be kept on live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 1 ^/"^^'^ 4" ,? ' '»• e years. hurtner, tne ratner on 23.2.1997 and the petitioner made an ipplication on attaining the age of majority on 26.9.1999. The facts in the present case are different, where the petitioner has filed an applicafion on 13.8.2005.i.e. after a period or' 20 years, wtthout disclosing the reasdfis for delay. According to iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 2002, as he was born on 9.10.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner has taken more than three years In making application without explaining inordinate delay." We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugn< order which may warrant interference in this v/rit appea.l. 10. The writ appeai, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and sere.by dismtssed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu ... sd/- sufly^-^ Judge