tuiei IN^LHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION fS^ N0. lol OF 2010 PETITIONER ^^^ ^1^-:'%'<3P" x ^M^ c--'"' ^' Rampyari, Wife of Late Shri B.hanu Singh Tilgam, aged about 37 years, R/o Village & Post - Nawadeeh (Lapti), Police Station and Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ^ .sfrSffr" ^..^r^ """V:^, .^^^ ^^^•'^- ^ .^rft ~" ,. ^' ^/ ''^ ^' •^' ' ^•ES7 ^'^!^. '" \. State of Chhattisgarh: Through: the Secretary, Departmentof Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh. <^ 4. The Tahsildar, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA »4 •e«»"»W •••;*«>(Bg HIGH COURT OF CIfflATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. 1 01of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Rampyari. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. Present: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Shri P.P.Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for fhe State/respondents. ORAL ORDER ~s (Passed on 1 lm day of March, 2010) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death ofthe husband ofthe petitioner, who while working as Patwari in the office ofDahsildar, Dharamjaigarh, died on 08.02.2008, in hamess. On 11.01.2010, this Court, while issuing notices to fhe respondents, observed as under: "Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that looking into the purpose of compassionate appointment, the petitioner made an application on 16.4.2008 immediately after the death ofher husband on 08.02.2008, who working as Patwari. However, no action has been taken by the officers concemed till date. It appears fhat if the case of the petitioner is not considered for grant of compassionate appointment, fhe very object of the compassionate appointment will be defeated. Rule-re-notice. Issue notice to the respondents, in accordance with the rules. Shri Roy, accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondents. He prays for and is granted three weeks time to file retum, ifany" Accordingly, three weeks time was granted to the State/respondents to file retum. Almost two months have passed, no retum has been filed. In a case like this where the case of the petitioner should have been considered for compassionate appointment to provide immediate relief to the distressed family, delay oftwo monfhs is a material consideration. On hearing leamed counsel for the parties and perusal of the papers appended to fhe petition, it is found fhat on 16.3.2009 (Annexure P/6), the Tahsildar, Dharamjaigarh has written to the Collector (Land Records Branch) Raigarh, for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis. However, no action has been taken by the Collector (Land Records Branch) Raigarh, till date. It must be made clear that in case of compassionate appointment, time factor is important. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with flie policy ofthe State Govemment and pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period ofsbt weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. r~———— ^^ j SATISH K. AGNMOTM 1 Judge