^l- T^> IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P. Z /2004 -^- PETITIONER ,.\A.-^y- ^c^^^y -'^•i'^y'^ •• ^^^J n. • ^ "y'tj' ^ ^-^- .^•^ Nanki Bai Rajak, aged about 31 years, W/o. Late Shri Ganesh Lal Rajak, Occupation: House wife, R/o. Behind Block Office, Baloda, DisO'ict Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh /"' <'.• s^;^^-^ -<v ^^ ^ &•'-^ RESPONDENTS :1. -•."/• ^" ^,1'^A !! ^ y ^ --^- ^^ '•\/..^c° ^ ,^' 2. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through; The Secretary, Department of Energy, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Energy, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Board Headquarters Raipur, Chhattisgarh Madhya Pradesh Electridty Board, Board Headquarters, Rampur Jabalpur, MP. The Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Bilaspur, Distrirt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh The Additional Secretary (Personal), Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 CONSTITUTIOJSL<u:J*——^ 3. 4. 5. 6. 's JL Tar'~R" fi -v-^-- .B a c» &». . 8, '8' 3 f Si II 8 % %, 1 i- i 8! g «« N> § 11. ft 9 1 % p n 0^~i•^VJ sU XI-HC-22 3^ '^H\vf<i, w^\w'l<o, fsfdiy^< 3ll^l 4^ch —...(A9-.^^. li*iCTisn*iiW"'"""""'-""^ 200^ f°re^ sn^r^ir f^iwsn^r shfl'bfffitf aii^i 6«i[Wflf?(T +l<lfo<flH KIW'1'fffeid <R|«K ^siRiisn^r .2006 Mr. Sanjay Ku. Agrawai, cou Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Govt.; Mr. A.S.. Gaharwar with respondents No.3, 5 & 6. Mr. Vivek Verma, counsel fo| Mr. S.K. Beriwa!, Centra! G .7. nsel for the petitioner. Advocate for the State/respondent No.1. Mr. Pawae Shrivastava, counse! for respondents No.2 & 4. 3Vt. Counse! for Union of india/respondent Heard. By this writ petition under ^rticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a di ection to the respondents to consider the case ofthe petitioner for compassi(|>nate appointment. The case of the petitionejr is that husband of the petitioner Late Ganesh La! Rajak was working a charged Assistant Grade-11 (Lini appointment ordsr is Annexure harness on 21-3-2000. Copy of petitioner applied for compassion^ite appointment, but the same is not being considered. The petitioner is f^ stan/ation. Her two chiidren aged| Vi! & Class-Vlii, respsctiveiy. Repiy fiied on behalf of CS] ^ Eiectrician and he was posted as Work- ^) at Malkharoda, Sakti. Copy of the l P-1. The petitioner's husband died in the death certificate is Annexure P-2. The dependants of those empioyees f|/ho died on or after 15-11-2000, as per the exasting poiicy for compassionats ^ppointment dated 28-2-2004. Having heard Searned coi record. Annexure P-3 is the lett^ th CSEB dated 15'" October, 2001 cing hardship, as she is on the verge of about 11 & 13 years are studying in Ciass- ^B is that CSEB is considering the cases of bnsel for the parties, 1 have perused the rwritten by the Superintending Engineer of in which it has been mentioned that the ('fttya^) XI-HC-22 •3{I^W«RI fN^sn^ff shl yfta 3^? •<<1<(IM<<, (iiTTI^'KS, RlMWy Sll^^t ^wh .tJ.'s{='.2-2_SS iiini »*<!» ^ 200^-- f^5% 3<1^1 gWIWfffttT ^ 4 appiication of the petitioner for the headquarter. As far as the compassionate appointment of 2000 is concemed, after Chhattisgarh came into existence] bifurcated with effect from 15-11J decisioR that the dependants 2000 shall be considered for section (4) of Section 58 of the and liabiiities and employees of among MPEB and CSEB. Vide of india, IVIinistry of Power, issued| that representatives of both the 5 Secrstary (Power) on 20 March, ^ be in iine with policy adopted for In para 2, it has been mentioned partia! modification of provisionai] relating to the division of empioye^ posts and empioyees on the line^ ana' empioyees of the State making aiiocation of posts and iVtPEB on the principie that successor State may be aiiotted to] beionging to such sub State State and only dividing the remain) States. con|ipassionate reorfbanisation Ml otder pos^s »hl<l(<a'41-l11H<lT^"fe'<fl <R|'KK ^>31^1T3n^T appointment was forwarded to qijestion regarding considering the cases of tho^e employees who died on or after 15-11- of the State, the State of |on 1-11-2000 and thereafter, MPEB was t2000,thsrefore, the Board has taken a of th^se employees who died on or after 15-11- ccfmpassionate appointment. Under sub- I.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, the assets lundivided Board were to be distributed dated 6th January, 2004, Govsrnment an order in which it has been mentioned $tates agreed in a meeting taken by the [003, that the division of employees wouid ^livision of employees of MP Government. the matter has been considered and in |order dated 12th April, 2001, so far as i^s it has been decided finaily to divide the foliowed by DOPT for allocation of post Gov^rnment of erstwhile Madhya Pradesh for pei|sons to the successor Eiectricity Board of reiatable to territorial jurisdiction of a [respective States and similariy empioyees territ<)rial cadres being allocated to concerned |ng posts and employees between the two tihat XI-HC-22 sn^T^r R-fi* 3n^?r stifi* Bfef tfr Soma 3^ '^nwii, w^\w\e, Rdiuy 3lI^IM?|tft ^wvil 9>wvr> """""""'""" V^ 200 R'b«A w^ii gwiwfffer abol/e compa^sionate depefia'ants • Therefore, as per the employees of erstwhile MPEB are jurisdiction of CSEB & MPEB. working at Sakti, District: BilaspurJ death on 21-3-2000, he was workij) such, as per the above decision hij of Chhattisgarh. Those employee^ CSEB are not entitled for were working in the territory of taken by CSEB that on!y the after 15-11-2000 i.e. the date of cr^ and the same is not based on ral MPEB have been allocated as Therefore, the responsibiiity of an| on the new Board in whose terril Chhattisgarh which was created 1-11-2000 has decided that the or after 1-11-1997 shall be entitled | Therefore, the respondent^ petitioner for compassionate app^i existence. With the direction aforesaidj Parties are entitied for certift »i<ifct<f1-i*<ii<'iTffteiA<Rt<<ii< ^^ri^rso^r direction of Centra! Government, the (o be distributed according to the territorial |No doubt, the petitloner's husband was State of Chhattisgarh. On the day of his ig in the territorial junsdiction of CSEB, as i^ services vvere to be allocated to the State ee^ who were working in the new terrltory of appointment from MPEB, as they QSEB. Therefore, on this line, the stand of those employees who died on or r^ation of CSEB cannot be saidto be valid, ional because the employees of erstift'hile per the territory of respective Boards. |employee who died before bifurcation lies lory he was working. Even the Stafe of uijider the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000,on d^pendants of those empioyees who died on for compassionate appointment. are directed to consider the case of the intment, in accordance with the policy in the petition starids disposed of. id copy ofthis order. .- — Sdl- L.C. 8hadoo judge