BBFORE THS B£«<B1EBIQH COBRT OF CHHAICTSGARH AT BIIASPBR(03) WP,Ro.,- 2--Z-2S' '/^& ^s.'' ^^ sy //.<^^" <^'<^>:/ ey ^vy 2. aged 23 SOB o£ late Bc-Asslstaat »FdSo. 23 Heware» Oarg wm (c.G.3. The Ssilor.Siaperinteadeat o£ Polices Wrg. Wrtt Petttion tJader Arfcicle 226/227 of the CoBstI.tution of Indla. -^•LS^S' - i-i^" • ^-^— ^-^WSS-':V^ ::a-HC-2: .int'iT'CT | V^-'>ch 53Tc^i »T3i37^rfta 1 c_ ^-—^- 'S^a. -WWT, »x)i<H'ls, |s]i:'i|<-i'4< /^ -)/ •____-, • .—-.„. ^ ^^ Us). f. pjo . z^^/2-517 sws TOnw W?ST qilliflIlT-T WW'. ^ i'SVS V'-!iW.\< ^; aiRft? 3T|^?I Shri R.S. Shrivastava, ci iiinsel for the petitioner. Shri Raiibir Sm.gh, GA f^r fhe State. By fhis writ petition |uiider Article 226/227 of the Consti.tution of India, fhe pAtitioner seeks to challenge tiie order dated 23/07/2002. (i^rmexure P/l) by wluch the petitioner's applicatiQu was n' •t considered for com.passionate appoiatment on the groiuid t&at his brother naaiely Devendra 1-vice of CMiattisgarIi Electriclft- s' Kumar is ali-eadv in the sef Board. Thc casc of fhc pctitijancr is that fhc fafhcr of thc pctitioncr nam.cly Narcsh I^rasad Yaclav was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector, PS, ^upela. He died in haraess when he was in. service of fhe State [Police of fbe M.P 011 14/05/ 1998 said on his death, the petitioner hereia applied for coiupassionate appointinent^ on 09/06/1998, but that apptication \vas not considei^ed and thereafter, fhe petitioner ngain m.oved application on qi/04/2002 for tlie same, but his VI [^tfOT "N XI-HC-22 ^q -^SRV^, ^ftwra, ^re^ 3n$?T^ T^W_3@ 'g?tlWHI?a to^ s: IT^S..^^^5 an^ii'g^nwafe •2-- ^iiqfepftTiWERff •?^tT :?(3R?R •^aipOTsn^r appUcation was rejected vide iinpugned order dated 23/07/2002 (AimexTire P/ l). Tlie brofher of fhe pe^itioner naiaely Devendra Kiiiaar resides with his fam.ii.y at Kh^iragarh and lie is not providuig any help to the family i&embeijs of late Naresh Prasad Yadav i.e., one son aad two da^ighters, wlio are wifhout aiiy lotlier source of incoiae. petitioner submits that the emplo^'ruent aad they have ao The counsel for the petiu.oner's case became rij)e and due for compassionate appotatment just after the de^ifh of his fatlier Naresb Prasad Yadav, but ttic application of l3jie petitioncr was not considcrcd and fhc circular was issitcd bv tb.c QovcrD.incnt on i " • 01/05/2000 'ivhich ia later in tune. Therefore, the-action. of the respondents ig ai-bltrary eaaf. fhey ought to have considered fbe case of the petitioner oa f4e policy, whicb was existing at tbe tiine of death of bis fafher. On ffae otlier baad, the lelamed GA for fhe State offposed a- '•"-„,^•:'-?i^^^^^SS^®sye'i?¥'^5s'^^ ''I-HC-22 's'ss. -v.ww<i, 's^TRpre, i«i<ii'Hy STT^'^'T ^i | 'H^i^'srit^T | ?'TT?T47 '^rft'? ,^:-»-r' 1 gpags'- | ^:.y.:..^.i.:.^r3^0''^ •' '2^i^ sn^i^giw 3 •^Wvf'flfIITtRlf ^ 'felSt <h>l^lt ^? 3rf:fl11 31lS?I Coinpassionate appoiatment is always inade 011 fhe principle that -wben any Gowe(3iiuent eiuployee retires or dies wnue in sei-vice artd this famllv nieuibers have no source of m.com.e except the fairuly pen^ion, therefore, ia on them fmancial assistaiice at lelast one member of fht given compassionate appom.tment. !n tlus case, disputed that fh.e brother of pie petitioaer naiaety TO give fajnuy is it is not Kuinar is alreadv ia ffae serlyice of Chhattisgarh Electricihr Board, tlierefore, It cannot be; said that no fauuly member of late Naresh Prasad Yadav is eajnung. Mr. Devender Kumar son of latc Narcsh Prasad Yadav, |is in cinployincnt, if hc is iiot 1 rcndcriiig suiy filiancial hclp |to thc fainfly incinbcrs of late Naresb Prasad Yadav, then Ijhey caiuiot blame the State or anvbodv else. Bven if he r^sides separatelv and does not provide any finaacial assistan^e to the fainily xaerubers of late Naresh Prasad Yadav, fhe peti^ioner does not have right to seek appointaient on conipassionatt ground. Moreover, on 1st 2000 Govemiaent issued a n4tificati.on/circular fhat only one fainily ineinber of a Croven^iuent einployee wiU be give'a s&s^sss XI-HC-22 WCTqi! sni^i 3TtJIai'W51a ^^iAt"'- ' .f 3^ -Iii«Kyi<i, ®Ti)wis,'(iiwiyy< , /^y^ WIRWarin^l .^..£r^^,,,'2-Z-ot^^"^ "Q^ 1200 ^v^v 31lt?I ^PITO: ^lf?? -^ - ^)i6{iici4i'i *n^^f ^ ~re%] ^R-SR ^TifiNfsn^i coxapassionate appointoient |and if any faiiuly inember of the Goveminent eiuployee is alr^ady iu Goveniiaent eniplovTiient, then the other faiiulv inetabers are not entitled for anv i employmeiit on compassionaj In view ofthe above, a^ ;e ground. the one son of late Naresh Prasad Yadav aiid fhe brother <^f fhe petitioaer is already m eiaploj'uieut, therefore, evea ffthe circulai- dared 1M May, 2000 came into force m.uch later, i^ makes no difference as one of the familv members of late Nal^sh Prasad Yadav is atreadv m einployiaent, fherefore, fb^ petitioner is not entitled for coiapas.sionatc appouitincnt aad his casc lias bccn rightly rcjccted by thc Coinpctent Ai^thority. Accordingly, fhc pctition has no fbrce aild tlie same isjdisruissed. In view ofthis order, l^t.W.P.No.2096/2003 and I.A.Nos. 7060/2003 & 7960/2003 stfmd disposed of, Sd/. (-C^HAOoo Judge