Q= l-ZT^— IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P.(SINO. ^3^ 9-0F 2010 PETITIONER 1 o V.'-"'-'! ^\-rf'' .^se^-' ..€%P^"" ^""A-"'"' '?••''" VERSUS 'Gulshan Kumar Bhardwaj @ Gulshan Kumar Bharatdwaj, aged about 19 years, S/o Late Roshan Lal Bhardwaj, R/o Village Chawdi, Tahsil Charama, Distt. North Baster, Kanker(C.G.) ^ RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Baster, Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) 3. Block Development education Officer Baderajpur, ( Vishrampuri) Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA 1 es—s^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR 1/1 ;TIT!ON iS) No. 4347 of 2010 PETiTIONER Gulshan Gulshan ar Bhardwaj Bharatdwaj \/1 ,s RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisaarh & Others. WRiT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present: Shri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. 01 (Passed on 28m day of March, 2011) $y this petition, the petitioner seeks quashlng of the order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.2, whereby the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected and furi:her, a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate Shri Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher in the Education Department, died in harness on 14.12.2005. Since at that point of time, the petitioner was minor, her mother made an appiication for grant of compassionate appointment on 24.03.2006 (Annexure P/2) stating that when the petitioner attains the age of majority, he may be given appointment. The said application was forwarded by the respondent No.3 to respondent No.4. However, no order was passed on the said application. Later on, according to the petitioner, when he became major, he aiso moved an application on "u €s/ 06.08.2009 for grant of compassionate appointment which was duly forwarded by the respondent No.3 on 07.08.2009 (Annexure P/3). The said application dated 7.8.2009, alongwith other reminders dated 21.01.2010 and 04.03.2010 were rejected by the respondent No. 4 on 08.03.2010 on the ground that the appiication was not filed within the stipulated period. However, no decision has been taken till date on the appilcation filed on 24.03.2006 bythe mother ofthe petitioner. Qn the other hand, Shri Ajit Singh, learned Panet Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submlts that for the first time, application for grant qf compassionate appolntment was received by the respondents on 12.08.2009 whlch was fited after the period of iimltation. Thus,the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appolntment was rejected.'However, Shri Singh fairly submits that no order has been passed on theapplication dated 24.3.2006 filed by the mother of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the subsequent apDlication filed bv the petltioner has been considered, but there is no averment in the impugned order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure P/1) asto whether or not, the application filed by Uie mother of the petitioner on 24.03.2006 for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner after he attains the age of majority, was considered. However, in view of the instructions issued by the State Government with regard to grant of compassionate appointment, which is prevalent as on date, the subsequent appiications dated 07.08.2009, 7. 21.01.2010 and 04.03.2010 filed by the petitioner have been rejected on the ground of delay. The whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befatlen the dependents on account of the ultimately demise of its sold eaming members (See: Haryana State Elactricity Board and another v. Haksm Singh ). In view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed io consider and decide the application dated 24.03.2006 (Annexure P/2) fiSed by the mother of the petitioner, in accordance with law and en its own merits, as earty as possibie preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok