^^ed^ IN IHS HIGH cajR-r OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR {C.G^f WRIT PETITICN N0. l-i-2-^ OF 2003 BETI«1EEN Rahul ihakre S/o Late Shri Dlnesh chand Haribhau Thgkre, ag.eS about 20 years, Resident of Janta Qr.No.91,Nenru i^agar Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (CG). ^? •••;^ ^•^ ?<^ a-° PETITIWEB ry:e^-" -..- ^^•- .»rfg' ..^.%^' '•^'^>'>" -J6V* -rf**' • c^" -. -^ ;?sc«1 tp^ / / 2. 3. LA. l'?A'"' .'V> <^ .^'/.=S'5. ¥\' A N D The State of CHhattisgarh, Ihrough -the sscretary Department of Bnergy, Maitralay, B.K.s.Bailding, Raipur (GG). dihattisgarh Stete Slectricity Baar<3, C«S.E.B.-Man<3al, Baipur, Tehsll and Bfistrict Ralpur. 2he chief Engineer, (Ecoductien) C.s.E.B. rba (East), KORBA. The Superintending Bigineer». Chhattisggrh State Electricity Boara, K&rba (East). Madhya Eradesh Blectrieity Board, Ihrough its Secretary, MPEB, Banpur, Jabalpur (MP). ESSTBNBENTS ^>f' WRIT PETITIGN IINBER ABTXCLES 2"26/2^ O®- THE ....'-' eeNSTITOTION OF INDIA 1- -f XI-HC-78 *11*1CTI aiWb TS? '<<i<<ici<<, siTflu'is, Rfdiuy ri^^. ,.U.^..10^V^ 200 3ii^<i wo (i^yy6() sn^T^r^iN? a^iT3:iroTs^i]»ti ^l..^ ;,.•;; ;^'^J^;i;- i-^sa^^"' ^?.^. "•''^Sfe.,, ^8 STiTRITHf^rsn^T '*l'><fcf'!fl-1 t||tfdT^"tsi<il <Rlt<K ^a.ri^iTsn^r 20.6.2006:- Shri Hemant Kesharwani wii|h Shri Sanjay Ku. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G. K. Beriwal, Dep4y Advocate General for the State/ respondentNo.1. Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for| Shri Vivek Verma, counsel f<| Return has already been| respondents No.2 to 4; Annexure-P/3 filed in the W| V. State of Chhattisgarh and other^ wife of late Shri S. Apparao is takeri respondents No.2 to 4. ir respondent No.5. filed in this matter on behalf of •it Petition No.3634/2004 (Sankar Rao ) which is letter dated 26-8-98 sent by the Executive Engineer, M.P.E.B., palod addressed to Smt. Shashi Rekha on record By this petition, the petiti|3ner has prayed for quashment of Annexure-P/1 letter sent by resp|ondent No.4 and further prayed for directing the respondents to cor|sider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The case of the petitioner |s that the petitioner's late father Shri Dinesh Haribhaoo Thakre was w^irking on the post of Plant Assistant Grade 1 Cail Transfer at MPEB hijlandal Korba (East). His father died while in service on 5-12-98 leaving petitioner. Copy of the death certifi(;ate is Annexure-P/2. The petitioner is a handicapped person having 451 disability certificate is Annexure-P| Examination in the year 2000. Co| At the time of death of the petition| years of age. The mother of I behind his widow and one son i.e. the 16 pennanent disability. Copy of the th f3. The petitioner passed 8l" Board ?y of the mark sheet is Annexure-P/4. ^r's father, the petitioner was only 16 he petitioner was an illiterate lady. XI-HC-78 3^ '<41<llf)<(, aTfl<1'l6, [s|<v)l^y *<l+lMl sh*<|c*i ^ 200 3<i^i Mafi ('i?i(3°"<'iT) 3n^TqiTf?-IRi a?IT3[T^Tsbt|l<ti ^i' i-:-^ Ss< ^ :.-' " WS^^S& •'f1 STtTTWBl^tTSn^T -^ Respondents MPEB issued appointment dated 13-7-97. The| i>i<iFci4)-f Hii'-iTffrs'<fl <Ri«i< ^isrf^iTan^r circular regarding compassionate petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment to t^e respondent No.4 but no action has been taken on the application, the^efore, the petitioner again on 5-5-2001 submitted a fresh application, th|s time also the respondents kept the application pending for 15 montlfl communication Annexure-P/1 resfj is not eligible for compassionate where the employee died in the to perform the duties and, therel work. Thereafter, the petitioner i is and lastly by way of the impugned icndents informed the petitioner that he appointment. in the said Annexure it has been quoted that compassiitinate appointment can be given only ccident while discharging his duties or has received injuries while dischaijging his duties and has become unable |ore, he has been separated from the fnmediately submitted a representation Annexure-P/6 in which he has cat^goricaliy stated that the above circular cannot be applied to the petiti^ner's case because the case of the petitioner was taken on 5-5-200)i whereas new poiicy has come into force on 1-3-2002. The action of r^spondents is arbitrary and illegal. Reply has been filed on bet|ialf of respondents No.2 to 4 in which it has been mentioned that as pe| dependents of those employees w| who expired in the course of en\ disable due to accident during the| tlme barred and the policy dated dated 1-9-2000. The application| processed in view of the circulsj petitioner's appiication does not| I- the policy dated 1-3-2002 only the [II be given compassionate appointment Iployment or who have been declared course of employment. The petition is 113-7-97 was discontinued vide circular of the petitioner dated 5-5-2001 was |r dated 1-3-2002 and found that the fulfill the criterion of cireular dated 1-3-2002, therefore, the petition of|the petitioner is iiabie to be dismissed. XI-HC-78 TS^ "lll'lllcf'4, ®T(IU'I<O,RlOltfy *II*ICTI ai*iich Wi[ 200 3ll^l ia<n (l^I^'t,''') an^T?iTf?:irai tWan^r^N; iSjsg s^^f-"' -^ssK^ yySfS^^ BTaRRdfer'si^T ~3>" regarping dield i have heard learned cou record. As far as impugned letter d; stating that as per the policy 1-3-2CX32 the petitioner is not entit that the father of the petitioner die minor and his mother was compassionate appointment in the the year 1997 was in force, then probability, has to be considered During the pendency of the applic. the petitioner, if any policy has bei of the petitioner which was poilcy in force since 1997. Learned counsel for clause-6 of the otd poiicy dated 3C compassionate appointment was case same was not made, therefor !n the first place this objecti in the letter dated 1-8-2002 an mentioned in para-5.3 of the petiti' the petitioner, he left behind wido was iiliterate and the petitioner w age of majority, the petitioner appl such Clause-6 of the Policy dated this case. Moreover, learned cour the letter dated 26-8-98 sent by tl <til<<f<-]<fl-t *11*1CTTiftecfl'<(:a|t<l< ^sri^iTTgn^T ^isel for the parties and perused the accru^d respo|ndents ^ted 1-8-2002 sent by respondent No.4 |jing compassionate appointment dated |ed is concerned, it is admitted position on 5-12-98 and as the petitioner was lilliterate, therefore, he moved for lyear 2001 and at that time the policy of ^fore, the case of the petitioner, in alt |n accordance with the policy of 1997. ^tion for compassionate appointment of ^n changed, that cannot affect the right in favour of the petitioner as per the No.2 to 4 argued that as per January 1997 only the application for \to be made within a year and in this @, appointment cannot be considered. an has not been raised by respondents d in the second place it has been m that at the time of death of father of w and the petitioner only. The widow as minor, therefore, after attaining the ied for compassionate appointment, as 30 January 1997 is not applicable in sel for the petitioner placed reliance on ie Executive Engineer of the erstwhile XI-HC-78 ~S^ '<11<(ICI<1, (STfl^'16, [sldl^y 3TI^T?irR-fi+ cmr3n^Tsh>i t.i*.; *11*1MI sb*1|t*» ^200 ^} 3ii^i <<aw (ytgqiyiT) ?T(ITWflfeT3T^T •A. 20C|2 M.P. Electricity Board in which S| son S. Shankar Rao is not e| because he is minor and on appointed on compassionate gro^ than the Electricity Board and pe^ heir is minor at the time of deatfl moving an application on attainiifl ground, points raised 'by responj filed with deiay has no merit for ^ sent in the month of August, 2003, before that, the petitioner a| No.4. Now, coming to the respondents No.2 to 4 that Di| petitioner, died in the year 19| 15-11-2000 bifurcation ofthe M.f bifurcated and the Ghhattisgarh existence, therefore, the petitioi appointment. 1 do not find any n] under sub-section (4) of Section| assets and llabilities and empl| distributed among the MPEB and Vide order dated 6 January Power, issued an order in representatives of both the Secretary, Power on 20 Marel' would be in line with policy ad< hit. Shashi Rekha was informed that her |igible for compassionate appointment attaining the age of majority he will be |nd. This letter was issued by none else )usa! of the same shows that in case any of an employee, then he is entitled for |g the age of majority and on the same (ients in their return that the petition is |he reason that the impugned letter was and this petition was filed in the year |so made a representation to respondent qiwld'fl-l 1WCTTfftec^<Rlt<;K ^isri^Tsn^T p|oint raised by iearned counsel for tiesh Haribhaoo Thakre, father of the P8 when MPEB was there and after .Ip. State Electricity Board has also been State Electricity Board has come into her is not entitled for compassionate |erit in this argument for the reason that |58 of the M.P. Reorganization Act, the joyees of undivided Board are to be |the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board. 2p04, Govemment of India, Ministry of kwhich it has been mentioned that Sljates agreed in a meeting taken by 2003 that the division of employees >pted for division of employees of MP XI-HC-78 3ST "iliqidl, (STflu'IS, R|i?1|uy SIT^TqiTf^IW CT2TT 3Tf^?T ^Hi=b ^^'s^-'^ aSteo*. i8®stl 5f': -Si ^f •''">; <ll«lWl sh*licti ^[ 200 3li^<i 4acn (>ic'(3°<S!ST) STtITWttf^TSn^T "^ th Government. In para-2, it has b^en mentioned that the matter has been considered and in partial modifica|l 2001 so far as relating to the div| finally to divide the posts and em| for allocation of posts and em| erstwhile Madhya Pradesh for m^ the successor Electricity Board relatable to territorial jurisdiction ^f a successor State may be allotted to respective State and similarly et| territorial cadres being allocated t| remaining posts and employees b^tween the two States, the Government of India has decided to appoint a ^ be headed by the same person w| by DOPT for Madhya Pradesl| employees of MPEB who were w| Chhattisgarh are to be allocateej Electricity Board on the principie ^ of posts and empioyees of the ^ Madhya Pradesh. The petitione| State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, For the foregoing reasons,| and the impugned order dated 1| directed to consider the applicati| appointment in accordance with th| C.C. as per rules. 'tii'ii^'ifl-f iiiciTff !s^& <Ri«<i< %3lf^TT3(1^T tion of provisional order dated 12'" April sion of employees it has been decided ployees on the lines followed by DOPT sloyees of the State Government of king allocation of posts and persons to of MPEB on the principle that posts iployees belonging to such sub State ) concerned State and only dividing the members State Advisory Committee to io was the Chairman of SAC appointed Therefore, on this principle the orking in the territory of newly created to the successor Chhattisgarh State ind line followed by DOPT for allocation itate Government of erstwhile State of 's father was working at Korba in the ?eing in the temtorial division of CSEB the liability of compassionate ap|pointment lies on the shoulder of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Boaijd. the petition of the petitioner is allowed 8-2002 is quashed. Respondents are sn of the petitioner for compassionate e poiicy of 1997. —— - ^ M»i\ ^ .,J^^ //.^ .^ '••^f"^'^U'^ ,s? ,^ ^ Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge