IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. •5\'S°> OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Bi'Sa /f •A<.-- <'"""/<^.-s' ^''(7\i,.s "^"^v'-"' Am.it Tiwari Son of Late Shri Ambikeshwar Tiwari, aged about 15 years, (Minor) through the guardian Grand Mother namely Smt. Shail Tiwari, aged about 46 years, Resident of Premnagar, Police Station Premnagar, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS <^' 1.' State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Health and Family Welfare Departinent D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Baikunthpiir Distt. Korea (C.G.) 3. Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea ^(C.G.) 4. Smt. Nisha Tiwari W/o Late Ambikeshwar Tiwari, Working as an A.N.M. Primary Health Centre Barpara, Conununity Heedth Centre Baikunthpur Distt. Korea (C.G.) LK:. l^liia.i -7 WRrrPETITION^UNDER AICTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA _£AE'FICULARS-nE-T1-I&J3E'mTJCTNE'D l 1' ~^^^' HiGH COUR7 OF CHHATTiSGARH : BJLASPUR WRiT PETITIOM (Si N0. 5159 OF 20M ER AmitTiwari ^ Versus State of Chhattissarh & Others (Writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitutton of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :• Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for tha petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. Generai with Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(OElALi (Passed on thss 10'" ciay of Sepfember, 2009) 1. Heard iearned counsei for the parties. 2. Learned counsei appearing fer the petitionsr submitsthat the petitioner being son of the deceased nameiy; Ambikeshwar Tiwari, has made an appiication before the respondent-authoritiss to cancei the compassionate appointment granted in favour of the respondent No.4 with an undertaking to take care of the dependant members of the deceased employee, as is evident from the policy dated 1-5-2000 (Annexure - P/6). It is further informed that even in the appointment order it is mentioned that the aoDointee has to take care of the other dependants of fhe deceased emptovee. 3. According to Shri Pandey, iearned counsel for the petltioner, the resoondent No.4. after obtaining the appointment on compassionate basis, has compieteiy ignored She petitioner and the petitioner is suffering on account of proper csre by the respondent No.4. Shri Pandey submits that She petitioner has made an appiication dated 20-7-2009 (Annexure - P/5) befors the respondent No.2 to consider his case in th®iight of poltey dated 1-5-2000 as well as in terms of clause 5 of the appointment order T^ S "'^Sgg^ ji \:t^/ '"s's£^^!' 5. 6. Gowri 3 dated 1-6-2009 (Annexure - P/4). The resDondent-aufhorities mav be directed to consider and decide the i-epresentation/ application of the petitioner dated 20-7-2009 within a stipuiated period. Shri Thakur, learned Dy. Adv. Oeneral appesring with Shri Bhaduri, iearned Panel Lavwer for the State submits that ths pending representation/applteation of the petiiioner would be considered and decided, in accordancs with law and on its own merits, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. in view of foregoing, according to the tearned counsel appearing for the Detitioner, nothina survives in this Detition for adiudication. Accordinglv, the writ oetition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge