(b BEEORE THE SATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL/331$)? AT RAIPUR ODP(§) 3§9//0)' ORIGINAL APPLICATION DD. OF 2001 BETWEEN Smt’. Padma Yadav,‘ aged abcut 30 ygars, D/o Late Hari Prasad Yadav, R/o Khutrapara; Post office Gangoti Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja. ,,\ ., PETITIONER par R ’ul’ran M P Satewggi’WME RA: e state of ehhattisgarh, ough the Secretamr Department of civil Supplies, Mantralayi D.K.Building, Raipur. The Cantreller, ,Departuent of Weight and Measure, Raipur. Ass 1stant Controller, Depar’anent mf We ight and Measure, Bilaspur Dims lon, B11 aSpur. Ass 1s tant Controller, Welght am Measure, Ambikapur, Dwstrlct Sarguja. RESPONDENTS APPLICAmON UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMxmsmaATxVE .T‘RIBUNALs ACTJW;985: T r N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ' BILASPUR Siggle Bench: Hon’b!e Shri Magindra Mohan Shrivasgga, J. , WRIT Enngw (s) No.3591goos ' Sm_t. Padma Yadav ‘ Versus The State of Chhaiiisgarh and others ; Femner Résgondents l H I' Presentd L '-Shn‘ Aditya Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer for the State. (Passed on this 31" day of March, 2010) With the consent of learned gounsel for the parties, the petition is heard ‘ tinaiiy. (2) This petition has been tiled by the petitioner aggrieved by rejection of her ciaim for grant of compassionate appointment. (3) Case of the petitioner in short is that upon death of her father Late Shri Hari Prasad Yadav. who wasiworking as Watchman in the ofiice of inspector, ' Weight and Measure, Ambikapur, mother of the petitioner. Smt, Rajkumari submitted her consent on 02-11-1998 (Annexure A-2) for grant of compassionate appointment togthe petitioner-her younger daughter. Petitioner v submitted an appiication before the Assistant ControHer. Weight and Measures; Biiaspur ?i\rision, Biiaspur on 12-10-1998 (Annexure A-3). Though, petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities but the same failed (rwwe to evoke any response. Finally. vide letter dated 27-07-2000 (Annexure A-8), the Controller. Weight and Measure. Bhopal informed the petitioner regarding rejection of her application for grant of compassionate appointment. As” (4) Submission of leamed counsel f0} the petitioner is that as the object and purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to provide succor to the family of the deceased government servant. Taking into consideration the hardship prevalent in the ‘family consisting of a widow and two daughters including the petitioner. respondents were duty bound to grant compassionate aPpOintment to the petitioner. Further submission of leamed counsel for the petitioner is that present is a case of extreme hardship. Widow of the deceased government servant is ailing and the sister of the petitioner for many reasons is unable to take up employment. It is argued that even if petitioner is married in the given circumstances. respondents ought to have granted compassionate - appointment to the petitioner and she could not be discriminated on this ground that she has married. / (5) Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that though the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was considered and it was found that the petitioner was a married daughter of the deceased government servant and in .view of the provisions contained in the government policy and guidelines, application was rejected. (6) l have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. (7) it is not in dispute that petitioner was a married daughter of the deceased government servant. A bare perusal of the policy dated 01 05-2000 (Annexure A-8) (Filed as Annexure R-1 by the respondents). under which. the case of the petitioner was considered, would show that compassionate appointment could AC, not be made available to maied daughters of the deceased government servant. (8 It is trite that compassionate appointment oould not be claimed as of right. Compassioate appointment could be granted only in those cases which are covered nder the olicy of compassionate appointment and not beyond that. No writ of mandamus can be issued to respondents to consider and grant compassionate appointment dehors e policy of compassionate appointment. ln this view of the matter, l m of the opinion that rejection of petitioner's representation, for grant of compassionate appointment did not suffer from any llegality. (9) Consequently. the petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Sd/-. ‘Maningra Mohan Shrivastava 7 Lidudge ’ _\ 7% L rr ) n u p th a i \