^!^?^ -^*^-^-0-"'" ^- ^ l-ft-^?s?*>L£-^>'^ r ^^^^ :': :: ^z^:?—: .' ~ : ''" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. -SSS O /2010 PETITIONER Smt. Devki Bai aged aboyt 33 years W/ o Lat Dukhawaram MaR^ndra R/ o' VilIage-Dhanbara Tahsil . Bhanupratappur Distt. Kanker. RESPONDENT 1 The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, education department., D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur The Gollecfor, Uttar Bastar Kanker. Distt Education Officer, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :1<"' tet ^ HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SVN0.5550 OF 2010 L^ 10~ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Devki Bai Versus The State of Chhattfsgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri SatishK. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriA.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 28th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counselfor the parties. . 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17/08/2009 (Annexure P/9), whereby the applicatipn of the petitioner for consideration to appoint on compassionate basis, was rejected on the ground that the application was filed after a period of two years seven months from the date of death of the deceased employee. 3. According to the petitioner, husband of the petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher died 6n 22/02/2006 in harness. The petitioner made immediately 'an application on 07/04/2006 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to produce death certificate as well as succession certificate. Subsequently, the same was submitted on 15/09/2008 alongwith one more application. The fact that the application was filed immediately withih the prescribed time 6f six months, was completely ignored and the subsequent applicatioh alongwith succession certificate as well as death certificate filed on 15/09/2008, was taken into consideration while rejecting the application of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, relying on the reply filed on 25/01/2011 submits that the application of the petitioner was received on 15/09/2008 as stated in para No.2, buton the subsequent para No.6, the facts averred by the 6. petitioner in paras 8.1 to8.5 of the petition was admitted the fact of death of the petitioner and date of the apptication made by the petitioner. Shri Sridhar relies on another letter dated 10/10/2008, according to the learned counsel, the application was received on 15/09/2008. Thus, it was contended that the rejection of the application ofthe petitioneron theground ofdelay in filing application, was justand proper. Be that as it may, on perusal of the documents and having considered submissions made by leamed counsel for the parties, it appears that the application was fited on 07/04/2006, but the relevant documents could not be filed along with the application, which was subsequently filed on 15/09/2008 with one more application; Thus, the limitation ought tohave been taken from the date of filing of the first application particularly in case of compassionate apppintment, as the requirement of filing of a succession certificate requiressome time. In view of foregoing.the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordancewithlaw, on its merit and pass appropriate order as early as possible preferable within a period of four weeks from the date of receiptof a copy ofthis order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposedof. ' 1 SatishK. Agnffiotri F Judge Arun V