u‘ .....a“ .7 , . ‘,.§$ L ‘ c rS‘Wag $‘$°.-*§§4*1:? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH THAKUR VIJAY SlNGl-l General Administration Department, Asst. Solicitor General of \nd'a State of ChhattiSgarh, High cHHATl’ISGARH Cnurt campus. m6“ Bilasnur COURT (G G) I Raipur—(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 22 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 Particulars of the Petitioner. As per cause title. 1 " 6 AT BILASPUR w.P.NO. l 2855 1 2005 Petitioner Bhola Ram Kosariya S/o Late Shr Ram Budh Kosariya, Aged about 26 years, R/o Danteshwari Ward No.2 1, Baila Bazar, Jagdalpur, Dist : Bastar — (C.G.) , Vsrsus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretaly Home Department Mantraiaya Raipur, Dist : Raipur — (C.G.) The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter Chattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Raipur-(C.G.). The Superintendent of Police Jagdalpur—(C.G.) The Union of India Through The Secretary Department of Personal Public Grievances and Pension. Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi The State of Madhya Pradesh ‘ Through The Secretary, e a ~ . f Home Department, Mantralaya, /,., . w M05 Bhopal. Th6 @< 6g\\9o\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Pstition No. 1889 of 2005 Patitionar Bhola Ram Kosariya Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8n others (Writ Petition lmdsr Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shn' Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3 & 6. Shn' Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the respondent No.5. /V._ . . \ . , ORDER [Oran (Passed on this 22nd day of September, 2009) Heard. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 14.7.2003 (Annexure P/6), case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner died on 19.8.2000 i.e. before formation of the State of Chhattisgarh. He further submits that pursuant to the new circular, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, the dependents of the deceased employee, who died after 1.11.1997 are also entitled to get compassionate appointment. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to Withdraw this petition with liberty to make a hesh representation to the concerned authority to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of the new circular. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 6/State submits that if a representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law, on its own merits, within a period of six weeks. 3. In View of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above—stated liberty. No order asto costs. . . Sd/~ Satish K. Agnihctri , Judge '