.4 IGH COURT OF CHHA'I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR Wri‘i Petition N0. 774 0f2005 PETITIONER : Narayan Singh Thakur S/o late Shri Purshottam Singh Thakur, Aged about 21 years, R/o C/o Roop Singh Thakur, Nai Ganj Mandi, Pandritarai, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Health Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 3. The Director Health Services, Raipur, Distt. Raipur - (CG). 4. The Block Medical Officer, PHC Pallari, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (CG). . State of Madhya Pradesh thorugh the Secretary Health Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Distt. Bhopal. (MP). 6. Union of India, through the Chief Secretary Department of Personnel & Training & Public Grievances, Shashtri Marg, New Delhi. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA) (SB: Hon'hle Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri. J.) RESPONDENTS Present : Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25th day of February, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. This is a petition where the petitioner seeks compassionate appointment on the ground that father ofthe petitioner namely Purshottam Singh Thakur, died on 23.08.2000 in harness, While working as Computer Operator (Sangaclale) Class-III in the Health Department. According to the petitioner, H r the petitioner made an appiication for consideration of his case to grant compassionate appointment on 26.06.2002 (AnneXure P/3). Thereaiier, certain documents were required to be filed. The same have also been filed. The application ofthe petitioner for compassionate appointment is pending consideration. It is weH established that the application should be tiled immediately and the government should consider the application also immediately in View of the compassionate appointment policy ofthe State Government. Shri Pankaj Shiivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that it‘the application ofthe petitioner is pending consideration, the same snail be considered in accordance with law, on its own merits, preferable within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. In View of above stated submission made by the counsel for the State, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing remains for adjudication. The petition is accordingly disposed ofwith the above stated direction. No order as to costs. Consequently, M(W)P No. 627/05, application for grant ofinterim reliei: stands disposed of. SCH- ,Satish K. Agnihotri ‘Judge