t.iS. ^ Writ Petition (S) No. 2S18 of 2008 Shyam Chamkel, S/o. Late Gangaram Ghamk61, aged about 28 years, E/o. Sufarhan Nagar Karbala, Bllaspur, District Bllaspur Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Urban Administration and Devetopment Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Municipal Corporatiori.Biiaspur, throuah the Commissioner, Bilaspur, Disirict Bilaspur CG. 3) The Deputy Commissioner, Municipai Corporation Bilaspur, District Biiaspur (CG). 4) The Health Officer, MunicipalCorporaiion, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur CG. pA/nt Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of India.) SB: Hon'bleMr. Satish K. Agnihotri,^. Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, counse! for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State, Smt. Hannida Siddiqui, oounsei for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. ssed on >a With consent.of learned counselappearing for the psrtles, the matter is tieard finalty. • 2) Learned counsei appearingfor the Detitioner submits that the father of tHe petitioner Shri Gangaram' Chamkel, while working as Supervisor (VVard Sardar) in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, dted in harness on 15-3-2005. The petitioner, beinE dependent on the income of the petitioner, appljed immediately on 18-5-2005 for consideration of his case for grant of compassionate appointment. The appiioaiion of the petitioner for grant appointment on compassionaie ground has^een reiected .by the respondent No.4 on 7-3-2008. \ , i 2) ' Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4/iVlunieipal Corporation submitsthat while rejecting the application ofthe petitioner on 7-3-2008, Ruie: 8A of the C.G. NagarPaiik Nigann (AdhikariyonTathaSevakonKiNiyuktiTatha Seva Ki Sharten') Niyam: 2007 (for short, "theNiyam 2007"), which was notined on 24-1-2008, was compieteiy jgnored. Learned counsel fairiy submits tnat this case should be reconsidered in the liaht of Rule 8-A of the Niyam, 2007. «f 3) tn view of categoricai statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, learned counserappearing for the petitionersubmitsthat this petition rr.ay be disposed ofwith a direciion to the authorities to consider his case afresh underthe provisionsof Rule8-Aofthe Niyam, 2007. 4) In view of foregoing, the impugned order datec! 7-3-2006 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The petition is allowed with a direction that the respQndents-authorities will ^consider the oase of the petitloner afresh in the tight of the provisions of Rule 8-A of the Niyam, 2007. IRajU Sd/- Satish K; Agnihotri Judge '