t^ IN_THEHQN'BLE HI6H COURTOF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR f.P. (S) N0. ^ 41^ / 2011 Petitioners ^.•••^..•••'. ..• "SK< 8&0 .^°.<: ^.-c''''?-'0..--". /••:fe's''..-,A\' ./<^" ./<<^ •":^\.--^^~ . Versus 1. ~ Smt.Amarkunwar Sardaj- Wd/o Late Shri Biharilal Sardar, Aged about 45 years 2. Girja Shanker Sardar, Aged about15 years, 5/o Late Shri Bi (Through his Natural Smt. Amarkunwar Guardian mother Aged about 45 years, Wd/o Late Shri Both R/o Ward No.2, Bhatgaon, Tohsil - Bilaigarh, Distt. ftaipur-(C.(?.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.6.) 2. District Education bistrict Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur-(C.6.) e Secondary Schoo!, Bhatgaon, Tahsil - ^ 1 • I ^ 4. Smt. Ganga Singh Sardar (Now Sahu) W/o Jitendra Sahu, Aged about 22 years, Peon at 6ovt. Sirls Higher Secondary School, Bhatgaon, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur-(C.6.) WRrLPETinON UNDERARTTCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTCON IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR {Hon. Wr. Justice Manindra M. Shrr.'asta'.'a) W.P.(S)No.4419of2011 Smt Amarkunwar Sardar another VERSUS State of Chhattisaarh and others Prsssrit: Shri Anli Singh Rajput, counsel for the petitior,er. Shri Praveen Das. Dv. G.A. for the State. This petit'on has been filed by the petitJoners for canceilation of compassionate appointment of respondent No.4 who Is the daughter of petitioner No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that instead of jranting compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.1, it was wrongly given to respondent No.4-Smt Ganga. He further submits that the compasstonate appointment was granted subject to the condition that respondent No.4 shalt maintain the dependents of deceased Bl.hari Singh Sidar but respondent No.4 is negiecting them. On the complaint made by the petitioners earfier, the District Education Officer directed the respondent No.4 vide his tetter dated 10.12.2009 to make payment of the maintenance amount to the petitioners failing which, her compassionate appointment shall be terminated. However, even thereafter the respondent No.4 js not makina the payment of maintenance amount which was condition subject to which compassionate appointment was granted to the respondents. 3. A representation has been made to the District Education Officer on 07.04.2011 on the twin allegations. Firstly, that the compassionate appointment was given to respondent No.4 as a result of the conspiracy instead of it being given to the petitioner 2. No.1 and secondiy that the respondent No.4 is not making payment of the maintenance amount to the petitioners v/hich was the condition subject to which appointment was given to respondent No.4. 4. The District Education Officer shall hotd an enquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondent No.4. In case it is found that the compassionate appointment was given to the respondent No,4 in violation of policy, appropriate acti'on shall be taken. In case the order of compassionate appointment is found to be proper, but if it is found that the respondent No.4 is not making payment of maintenance amount to the petitioners resulting in violation of the conditions of compassionate amount, the District Education Officer sha!l pass necessary orders in that regard. Priya 5. Necessary enqulry shall be made by the District Education Officer expeditiousiy without undue delay. _ -—' sW.Wa'3',ta^a ^an^AYa jud6e