HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HONaBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 290 of 2010 Aoneliant Raj Kumar S/o late Laxamn Prasad Petitioner . Yadav, age about 39 years, R/o Village ‘ Navgawan; Police Station Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Versus Resgcndents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (Ge) 2. The Collector, Korba, Distt. Korba (ca) 3. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Baraj Jal Prabandh Sambhag, Rampur/Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4. Chief . Executive,,£ngineer, Minimata Hasdea Bango Pariyojna, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. The Superintendent Engineer, Hasdeo Pariyojna Division, Water Resources Department, Rampur/Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Writ aggeal under Section 2 i1! of the Chhattisgarh High Court [Appeai to Division Bench Act, 20051 Present: Shri Rishi Rahui Soni, iearned counsel for the appellant. \ Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate Generai for the State/ respondents. ‘ JUDGMENT (3” september, 2910) " The foltowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on LA. Nam/2010, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the writ appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel‘ for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient sause for the delay in fiiing the writ appeal. 3) LA. No.01/20i0, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant Raj Kumar has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 28-02-2009, passed No.289/2009. i 6) The appellant] petitioner filed the writ petition for the following in w.P.(S) reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to cail for the entire records of the case for kind perusal of this Hon’bie Court. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue an order of compassionate appointment of petitioner a'nd set aside the memo dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure P-i) passed by respondent no.2. 10.3 That, the cost of the petition may also be grated \ to the petitioner with full economical benefits. ,,/‘-. 10.4 Any other relief or relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble court feels m in the facts & circumstances of the case” 7i The petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him compassionate appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3‘ 8) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of J & K and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in {2006) 5 SCC 76$ did not find any good ground for grant of the reliefs « sought by the petitioner in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge, therefore‘ dismissed-the writ petition vide impugned order dated 28-02‘2009‘ 9) Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the respondents have illegally denied the compassionate appointment to the appellant though he was fully entitled for the same. _ 10) The appellant’s father who was working as Chowkidar in the Office of the Executive Engineer Hasdeo Baraj Jal Prabandh $ambhag, Rampur/ Korba‘, District Korba, died in harness on 30-1 0-1 997. The application submitted by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents mainly on the ground that no vacant post was available for a period of five years since the death of the appellant’s father on l;\\ l.\,,‘ \d //~. I 30-10-1997. In addition, the family of the deceased has now survived for a period of 13 years after his death in the year 1997. 11)‘ On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei for the appeilant; the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order; the fact that the famiiy of the deceased Government Servant has survived for a period of about 13 years; and in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of t V J & K and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge which may warrant interference in this infra Coun‘ appeal. 12) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu