a”? L70L / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT APPEAL No. Q Q3 /2008. Appellants 1. ”(The Chairman, Respondents 2 &3 Steel Authority of India Limited, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. The Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan; Bhilai, Distt.Durg (C G). Versus 1. Toranlal S/o Mehtar Dhhemar, R/o Village Basing, P.O. Nandini Nagar, 4 Distt. Durg (CG). 2. Union of India Through : The Secretary, Ministry of Steel & Mines, Department of Steel, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi — 110 001. (RESPONDENT N0.1). 3. Sanat Kumar @ Sanad S/o Birajhoo Ram, Caste Sahoo, R/o Village Hirri, P.S. Pulgaon, Distt. Durg (CG). (RESPONDENT No.4). State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Conector, Dur’g (CG). A$ )4 (RESPONDENT No.5). m. 1e) d— HMtm/vr »F- o&' (Ay/w ewes.) Mg”; ylu’. k’ ‘1'. ’ V A WRIT APPEALUNDER RULE 157 SUB-RULE 10 OF THE \ CHHATTISGARH HIGH’VCOURT RULES 2005. Dir, 1,7 ,E ,E Respondents. Petitioner , , Rx HIGH COURT OF CH’HATTISGARH AT 3ILA5PUR ‘ ' Dixision £ench: ‘ Ho'ble Shri d usi & .Hon'ble Shri‘Pi- ”shah'K ’arw :IQra ‘ . Wri‘l' Aggggf No.253 OF 2008' a The Chairman, $‘feel Aufhrorityirgfllndia Limi‘red & anofher u ‘ Toranla! ,& ofhers Aggcnanf Resgonden'rs 2 &3 Resgondcn‘ts Pe‘ri Ticner Presen‘r: Vs ’Mr. 'Gau'ram Bhaduri,.Advo,cafte_for 1~hewappetlgnt$ Mr. U+?am Pandey; Advgcafe for respondenf No.1.’ ‘ None Mr. Anand for respondent Varma, Smnding No.3. Counsel forrespondenf No.2; ' L Mr. Amri'ro Dag Pane! Lawyer for myondgn: N9.4/M5tqj’c.g 0M; Jgg’eneyl (Passed on 29'“ March, 2010) I.M. Quddusi. g:— 1. Heard‘ 2. This wri'r appeal is dinectadLngqinsT fhg impugned orderQda-fed 11.08.2008 passed by‘ fhe Jenrned Single Judge in W.P. No.3592/O4 by which a direcfion was issued fo ‘rhe wri'l’ appellams To consider the question Vof e9mpensaf¢rygppgin1menf ' the writ pennon’ 3. Briefiy‘ shied, fee-is of the coseore fhotin the yearJ957 land of fhe respondent No.1's mafernai grandfather was acquired for fhe Sfeel Auihorify of India‘Lim‘i‘red for iheir use. ,A‘i fha'r fime fhere was a scheme under which one of 1'h.e familkmembers of fhe affecfedpe‘rson, major par'r of whose land has been : of The peiifioner/respondenf No.1 herein during ihe pendency of acquired, would been‘fi‘Hed to ge‘r employment Unfotjuhgieiy, one Sanf Rom, aliegedly son of Dev Narayan W(respon‘den+ No.3 herein) 901’ fhe employment fhough he was no? en'fi‘iled fo ge‘i as fhe entiflemen? was of fhe legal heirs ’of fhe deceased owner whose land was acquired. In The year 1989 The scheme , came +0 an end. x n I u f" Later on, The fraud was defecfed and criminal case was lodged againsf the respondenf No.3 herein and now heis no more in The seryice. However, by 'rhis employmentjhe,peti‘rigner /_ respondent No.1 was deprivedof getting the empldyment._ Since 1989 the scheme is not in force, however, the withdrawal of the scheme is with prospective effect and not retrospective effect. 4. Learned Single Judge has only directed to consider the.,,,case of the petitioner / respondent No.1.herein for appointment. . As the matter requires final adjudicationandthe writ petition is still pending andthe interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is only for the discretion of the writ appellants that they may consider the case of the petitioner in light of the ; ..fact that the respondent No.3 herein has obtained appointment by practicing fraud and the petitioner/ respondent No.1 has been deprived of the employnient because of that fraud; Therefore, ifrthe writappellants consider, at‘ their discretion. in this light the question of grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner/respondent No.1-here,in,~ withdrawal of the scheme in the year 1989 would not be animpediment as the same is with prospective effect, as already observed above, and in case they decide to give employment to the petitioner/ respondent No.1 herein, the writ petition would become infructuous automatically. 6. However, we dispose of this appeal with the clarification that interim order of learned Single Judge is only for consideration of the petitioner's case for appointment, at the discretion of the writ appellants, during the pendency of writ petition. 7. Certified copy as per rules. sd/. e “\k\f'M-Quddusi l y‘ Sdl- _ Mishra : ‘y‘yJl-ldge / .i l Prashaiit Kumar . . Judge