.^v .4 1 BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE -^ BENCH AT RAIPUR (CG) Smt. Sakuntala Soman, Widow of: Late Shri M.K. Soman, R/o: Qtr.No.1/65 Irrigation Colony, Raipur. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Water Resources Department, D.K. Bhavan, Raipur. Superintendent Engineer (Admn.) O/o: Engineer, '^ c^'s^r Water Resources Department, Raipur. S.^Executive Engineer, C Eo>n/M-) Water Resources Department, Raipur (CG) r-/^\)^i^M^£- O.A. N0: /2002 Applicant Respondents APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALACT.1985 XI-HC-78 Ul^dl sb^lcb 3^ ^TPTT^PT, ^TTl^^Ko, f^cni^y .^pt?.QS^(l<^.1?.t^-:200 "'^l 311^1 MSI<h (t?^^) W^T^T^Jcb cTSn'3TT^TsbH|cb )^<rreTC^rf?cT3TT^T 14.6.2006 Mr. N.K, Vyas, Advocate f|3r tlie petitioner. Mrs. Chitra Shrivastava, Heard. Leanied coiuisel for the Ghi^?<n<TITi ^iH<viT^tel^t<Ri<^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^?T P.L. for fhe State. tetitioner submitted tliat he does not waiit to press I.A, No.896/06 f^led forjoinmg the Union oflndia aad State of M,P. as responden|ts. Accordtagly, fhe appMcation is dismissed as not pressed. By tlds petition, tlie pe| propriety and correctaess of tl| A-l) passed by respondent Resources Departnient, Raipu| (Aanexure A-2) passedby resp<| (Admn.), Water Resoiu'ces appUcation of tlie petitioner foil has been rejected on flie grc|und that fhere is no provision for conipassionate apponitment to The case of the petiUone^ Work-charged eiaployee on fhe| on 9,1,2000, tlierefore, she ap| on 19.1.2000. The Govemmenl scheme dated 10.6.1994 foi fhereafter it was revised on naniely Late M.K, Somaii was Raipur, The pay scale of th< titioner has questioned fhe legaUty, e oi-der dated 20.12.2001 (Annexure No,3~ Executive Eugineer, Water ~ and also order dated 21.08.2001 ^ndent No,2-Siipermtending Engmeer Oepartaient, Raipiir whereby fhe grant of compassionate appoiatment fche heirs ofwork charged employees. is fhat her husbaad was workiag as post of Progress-Maii ancl he expu'ed plied for coiapassionate appouitment oferstwhile State ofM,P. framed the I- compassionate appouitment and 11,5.2000. The petitioner's husband |ippouited as Helper io. the year 1979 m. the office of Superintendt^ig Enguieer, Irrigation Departnient, t petitioner's husbaad was revised ^Ef:^x^*^a. ajSaasa XI-HC-78 3TI^T^Tf^TT^ cT^T3TT^T'5b^icb 753T "qiq|<nq, ffiTfl^^KS, fc|diy^< ^l^dl sh^lcb «---*-««««-«- ^[200 3ll^l *<3(<h ((icli^61<ili;T) ?^Tren:^'f?cT3TT^T ^ toRs.2750-70-3800-75-4400/ -| month of December, 1999 the basic pay of Rs.3380/- + D.A| the death of her husband ih^ appoiatnient vide appUcation <=bi^f<<i41<ri ^ii^dT^te^^^K ^3Tf^T3^T by fhe Govemment of M.P. In fhe h^usband offhe petitioner was drawiag Rs.1082/-, total salary ofRs.4060/-. He expired on 9.1,2000 aad d^afh certificate is Annexzu'e A-5, After petitioner applied for conipassionate dated 19.1.2000, as at that time his son was only 11 years old aiid |she was tlie only member ia the famity who is fuIfiILmg all fhe quajUfications to get the coBipassionate appoiataient. In the retuni filed by fli that tiie Chief Engiaeer, Wate^ Resourccs Departoient wrote a letter on 4.8.2000 to the CoUector, work charged employee aiid tih^ petitioner, It was farfher uifi^ as per poUcy dated 1,5.20001 appointment offhe heirs ofwoj Havuig heard learaed c^ tlie schenie issued by fhe Gei^ State ofM.P. dated 1.3.1994 to flie heirs of fhe govemm| Clause-11 of the schenie spe^ work-charged/contmgency p^ meinbers of such einployee appoiiitsaent, but fheir app^ e respondents it has been nientioned Raipur tiiat fhere is 110 vacancy offhe erefore, returaed the appUcatiou of tlie rmed vide letter dated 25.8.2000 that there is 110 scope for compassionate rk charged eniployees. )unsel for fhe parties, I have penised eral AdBiinistrative Department of fhe rcgarduig conipassionate appouitnient ?nt eniployees who died in haoiess. ?ifi.cally provides tiiat on the deafh of rid employees, one of fhe family shaU be eUgible for compassionate )intaieut shatl be made under fhe conditions ofWorkcharged/Cotiitingency Fund Seivices 1 S^a^^i'i^. XI-HC-78 ~ys[ r^ww^, ^ww, (cidiy^< *ll+<^IS»»*11<tl ^ 200 311^1 ^5|cb 3TI^^Tf^TT^ ?TSTT3TT^Tsh^I<=b N»N^Nr> ^TT^T^fN^H^T ^<^> — cbi^f<n41Ti ^i^^iT^te^iRi^K ^31^T3TT^T When fhe petitioner's hu^baad died on 9,1,2000 this poUcy was m. force aad when fhe p^titioner appUed for com.passionate appomtment on 19.1,2000 at fhjat time also this poUcy was ia force aad when the applicatiou of fl4e pctitioner for com.passionate was under process, fhe General ^dniinistration Department of the erst^vhile Govt, of M,P. revised |the poUcy regardiag conipassionate appoiiitaient vide order dated 3|,5,2000 aad ia which no provision was niade for conipassionate ai^pouitaaent of tlie faaiily members of tibie workcharged/contmgency p^id eoiployee, who died in haniess. Therefore, zuider fhc above ord^rs tlie respondents have refused to cousider fhe applicatiou of |the petitioner for compassionate appouitaaient, But tihie mipugitied orders of tlie respondents are prima-facie perverse and iIlegEJl, for the reasous that when the husbaad of petitiouer died on made appUcatiou for compassio^iate appomtment on 19,1,2000, the policy of flie year 1994 ia corapassionate appotataient of] govemment poUcy issued ia tlie j fhe tixne of deafbi of petitioner^ petitioner wlU be entitled for COB^ The second reqy.irepent is fhat] 9.1,2000 aad when the petitioner ^7hich therc was a provisioii for fhe faauly nieinbers of fhe work charged/contmgency paid eiaplc|yees, fhe respondents were required to consider fhe appUcation of t^.e petitioncr m accordaace wifh tibie ^ear 1994, which was ia existence at > husbaiid aiid when fhe petitioner filed the appUcatiou, It is trv^ that as per poUcy of 1994 fhe .passionate appomtment only for the work charged/ contingency funtl service post, if saoie is available. appomtment shaU be made on tlie XI-HC-78 3'^r ^i^i<n^,^tH^^(o, tsidi^y NIMdl sb^lcb *<<«*<*<**<»>**»*****^ 200 311^1 ^5|<ft (li^3^^) 3:n^T^>Tf^TW TOT3^T^T$h^i^ ^IVCA^- B^cTT^R^TfN'W^T "^e^l .r- k^^^'v{" ^omje post aud fhe fhird requir^ment eUgible for tiie compassionate In fhe result, flie orde^ passed by respondent No.3- Department, Raipur and ord€|r passed by respondent No.2-! Resozu'ces Department, Raipur| cousider fhe application of| appouitjiient iii accordaace 1.3.1994 Wifli fhe aforesaid, the Certtfied copy as per rule{ is tliat fhe iaciimbent must be a|ppouitment. e[- dated 20.12.2001 (Annexure A-l) ^xecutive Engiiieer, Water Resources dated 21.08.2001 (Annexure A-2) ii^ermtendmg Engmeer (Admn.), Water |are quashed aad tliey are dii'ected to fhe petitloner for conipassionate ^iih fhe govemm.ent. poMcy dated Sz^eruitendiii^ p^tition staads disposed of <=t)i^T<n41^ w^ff ^*te^ <[^<-^i< ^3Tf^TTW^T Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge ^^ ^T.^^. ^ ^a^' ^ '^^\ ^ !^-