^, sg W mGH COURT OF CBHATTI8GARH AT BILASPCR WritPettittonNo, 6425 of2005 PETJJJtONBR : Smt. Laxmi Bai, W/o Late «kri Janakram, Nirmalkar, aged 37 years, Resident rf village Ramhepur, Waid No. 14, Lonni, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). VEI^US RESPQNDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh througfa the Secretary, Water Resources, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Engineer in Chief(E.N.C.) Raipur (CG). 3. Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Basin Water Resources Department Behind Composite Buildiag, Bila^ur 4. The S.D.O. Hasdeo Basin, Water Resources Department, Behind Composite Building Bilaspur 5. State of Madhya Pradesh through, Secretary, Department of Water Resources Mantralaya, Kiopal (MP). (WRTT PETIHON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUnaN OP INDIA) (SB: Hon'bteMr.SatishK.AenIhotri.J.) Present : ShriV.Vijay, Advocateforfhepetilianer. Ms. Siinita Jain, Panel Lawyer farths Stafo/req>Qndetits. ORALCttlDHEl (Passed on 2nd day ofJnty, 2008) With the consent of the parties, the fflatter is taken up for hearing fin^ly. I. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner and farflier benefits towards ex-gracia, group insurance and other benefits. 2. Admittedly, the services of tbe petitioner was terminated on 19.07.99 (Anaexure P/2). Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that tiie petitioner has not filed any appe^, revision or representation against Ihe order of tennination. Subsequentiy on 27.095002 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner was acquitted in a crimmal case lodged :^7TJ^^r^-A?^^^^-^ .ff't' against him, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora (CG). The petitioner died on 29.10.2003 thereafter. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the State submits tiiat Ae outstanding amount in the Group Insurance Scheme amounting Rs. 4653 and interest thereon amount Rs. 7916/- total Rs. 12,569/- has already been paid to the petitioner. Thus, all amounts outstanding in the account of the petitioner's husband have been paid. 4. The order of termination has attainted finality. Thus, the petitioner is not entitied to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment as the petitioner has not died in hamess. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter ofright. Compassionate appointment is granted only in the event the employee dies in hamess and tfie dependent family has become penurious. The case on hand is not a case ofdeath ofthe employee in haraess, but is a case oftermination. Thus, the case ofthe petitioner fbr grant ofcompassionate appointment cannot be considered. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereindwve, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sahu