1 SINGLE 3mm IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH‘ AT BILASPUR watsmo. é‘lg‘g /2o11 / PETITIONER / Nishant Kumar Yadav S/o Late Mohan Prasad Yadav, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Palipara, Sarangarh, Ward No. 15, district Raigarh C.G. VERSUS ESPONDENTS l. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Revenue Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. . The Secretary General Administration Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. . The Deputy Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh, District Raigarh C.G. .WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. \[o F"\ MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIP, The humble petitioner named above most respectfully showed: l. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER. As mentioned in the cause title. é R 3? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILABPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.[S).N0. 6258! 201 1 PETITIONER Nishant Kumar Yadav VemuS RESPONDENTS State of C.G. 8a Others Shn' Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petiu‘oner. Shxi Symesh Bajaj, G.A. for the State] respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (20.10.2011l Gn'evance of the petitioner in thc present peu‘tion is that though he is cnu'tlcd for compassionate appointment but the same has not been gmnted to him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his earlier applicau'on was rejected when the petit'oner was minor and now the matter is pending before the respondent No.2 but till date the order has not been passed. He submits that the purpose of ming this peh'tion would be served if direction is issued to the petitioner to decide the pending case of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. State counsel submits that the peu'tioner has no legal right to seek compassionate appoinunent however, he has no objecu'on if the applicau'on of the petitioner is decided by the resp. No.2 in accordance with law considering all the aspects of the case. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direcu'on to the respondent No.2 to decide the pending application of the petiu‘oner if already not decided, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. "Agu Sd/- ‘1 Pritinker Diwaker i Judge ‘ ,1HH,;.:.«~M-. .,