-78 ^wT ^<i«irt^, u>Tl1^i<i<»,Rrti^iyx . ^J^cdD ^^. ^5^6 *ll*iwi ^TT^ ................................... sn^^TcpTR-ijcb ^rTa^^TawTcp 3T1^$T q^P (ijcli^el^) ^200% ?^IT^R^f^ 3n^$T PETITIONER Vikrai|i Suigh, aged-19 years, S/o Late Shaakar Pratap) Siagh, R/o Mahalpara, Baikiinfhpur, Distri^t-Korea (CG) Versus RBSPONDBNTS 1. State cjf Depart4ient 2. Princip- 3. 4. Chhattijsgarh Consei-tator Anib&atour, Divisioittal Baikunflipur Writ Petitipn uader Arti^ie 226 ofthe Constitution oflndta S.B Hoa'ble Shri Dhirendra) 17.11.2008 Shri MK Bhaduri, couni Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy qA By the uistaiit petition, the respondents for graat of the petitioner namely late Sl^ while serving as Forest Guard| tie The petitioner appliecp. 7.1.2003 (Annexure P/1), respondent No.4 vide his Annexure P/4 dated 5.1.20(p compassionate appointnient beyond Uie period ofthree ye^rs cpi4ifo<TlTi +ii^oT^r(^l<l ^R»i^-ci<< ^ 3Tf^T 3TT^^T Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, OfForest, DKS Bhavaa, Raipiir (CG) Chief Conservator of Forest, Sarh, H.Q.-Raipur(CG) of Forest, Surguja, Circle, Lir, District Surguja (CG) Forest OJSicer, Forest Division, Korea, pur, District-Korea (CG) Mishra, J< >el for tlie petitioner. for the State, |tlie petitioner has prayed for direction to |compassiouate appouitaient as fafher of Sqaiikai' Pratap Smgh died on 15.11.2002 |under the respondent No.4. for compassionate appouitinent ou same was duly fonvarded by tiie 4iemo to the Consei-vator of Forest of }58, however, the petitioner was denied 1on tlie ground that he applied for it ^c^T-«t«IW«,tPTll^<l«lRrtla<1^K ^c&^ ^o. 45^6 HWC^I a>w^ an^^Tcmf^Tt^ n^T3TT^$T95Trtcy> •^ ^., 3rr^?Tq^P(^t;36i^) ^200^ Learaed counsel for tib|< was muior on tiie date of on 10.7.2007, his appUcati^ already pendmg beforc th^ coBipassionate appoiiifmLent a| June, 2003 an.cl the saaie ha^ of delay, though tliere was n|; However, he submits tliat he aad prays for Uberty to fUe fr^ No.2, who may be further dire} specified p€riod. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, subaiits tliat ui case the conipassionate appoiataient shall be considered aiid dec| accordan.ee wifh. law from the In view of above parties, tlie uistant petition is| to fUe a fresh representation giievances raised iii tliis peti such representation beuig m^ aiid decide the same on its ow period of eight weeks froni the chl^f^^^ TTFTc?t"^'fc^xRl^lx ^3Tf^T3TT^$T tib|e petitioner submits tih.at flie petitioner dea(di of his father and he attaiaed majority n for compassionate appouitoQient was respoiidents; he was entitled for per schenie of Annexure P/ 7 dated 10th been denied erroueously on the ground such delay in makuig tlie application. is not pressing tliis petition at this stage ^sh representatlon before the respondent ^ted to decide his representation wifhui a le^mcd Dy GA appearmg for tlie State ^etitioner files fresh representation for >efore the respondent No, 2, tlie saaie |ded withia a period of eight weeks ia (iate of receipt of the representation, made bv leaniecl counsel for the disposedofwith Uberty to the petitioner (efore the respondent No.2 raisiiig aU. his |:ion along with copy of this order. On 4-de, the responde.nt No.2 shall consider /tii merits iri accordaiice witii law witlim a date of receipt ofthe representation. Sd/- Dhirendra|Mishra Judge subm3ssions ^