HIGH COUBT OF CBHATTISGARH AT BILA8PIIR PETITIONER WntPefltK>n(S)No,548»of2W7 Mohan Lal Yadav, aged 37 years, son of late Shri Panch Ram Yadav, residait of vUlage & Post Dharmapura, P.S. Jarhagaon, Tehsil Mungeli, Distriet BUaspur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through tfie Secretary, Dq»arta»ntof Water Resource, Raipur. 2. Chief Engineer, Hasdeo KacUiar, Departmeut of Water Resources, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarii). 3. Executive Engineer, Dq>artment of Maniyari Water Resources, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). (WWT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SK: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Afinfliotoi. J.1 Present : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Oupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. QRALQRDER (Passed on 11 ofFeltruary,. 1. Father of the petitioner late Shri Panch Ram Yadav, vrfule working as Khalasi, under office ofthe Sub Divisional OfBcer (Irrigation) at Mungeli, died in hamess on 28.07.2006. 2. fa accordance with compassionate appointment policy dated 10.06.2003 (Annexure P/3), the brother of the petitioner ma<le an application for compassionate appointment within period of six months &om the date of deafh ofthe father on 15.11.2006. The application ofthe brother ofthe petitioner was rejected on 03.02.2007 on the ground that his brother was not qualified for appointment 3. Thereafier. tiie petitioner made an application on 16.3.2007 (Annexure P/l) for grant of ccunpassionate appointment The respondent aulhmities, without considering the application of flie petitioner, rejected the same on tfae yound that tfae application was moved 8 months after the death ofthe fafeer ofthe petitioner. Sahu 4. Heard leamed counsel for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Clause 3(9)(2) as amended vide circular dated 2 Feb. 2006 (Annexure R/2) provides that the application of the dependent person for compassionate appointment be made within a period of six montfas fixan the death of the govemment employee, thereafter the same would be considered. On bare penisal of the policy, it appeara that, the first applicatioii for appoinbnent is to be made within a period of 6 months. The subsequent application on accoimt ofrejection ofthe first appUcation may be made thereafter. In tlie present case, the first apptication was made within a period ofsix months and wfaen it was rejected, the application by the petitioner, one ofthe dependent son was made within a period ofone montli. If the State employees take time in passing order, there is no provision for deduction ofthe said time. It may be sometimes more than six months. Their requirement is aboirt the first application and even if it is rejected, it caimot be made applicable if the other dependeiit member makes an application. Admittedty, the first application was made within time and the second application was made after rejection on the ground t: Ihat the elder brother ofthe petitioner was not qualified for appointment on the post. The respondent authorities ought not to have dismissed the second application ofthe petitioner on the ground ofdelay. 6. It is tlierefore, directed that the State authorities shall consider tfie application of the petitioner in accordance with law on its own merit without taking recourse to limitation constraints in the application. 7. fa view ofthe foregoing, this petition is accordingly disposed of. No order asto costs. —:-.-—— - Sd/- . Satish K.Agnihotri , Judge ; ,