^-^'^.......J ^v6'>.'-..^-^:"^Si^ . ^.^'•-'•y&^^^'^ ^^slf^---" ^ ^iMW ^ ^r t €>^ L ^^••'••••" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P (S) No. \0^ /2010 PETITIONER Manoj Singh Yadav S/o. Ute Ramjanam Singh; aged about 26 years; R/o. Village Mohamdabad, Post Balapur, District- Gajipur (U.P.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^l] ^] 3] ^" 4] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribe Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Additional Commissioner, Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribe Development, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G) Block Education Officer, Rajpur, District Surguja (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Amit HIGH COUET OF CaK^iBESGARH AT BILA8PIM WRTT PETmON (8) No. 1095 of2010 PETmONER : Manoj Sin^i Yadav. VERSU8 RE8PONDENTS : State ofChhattisgwh & Ottiers. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARnaUB226 (W THE CQNSTTTUnON OF INDIA SB; Hosi'fele Shri SaOsh K. A23iSIiotri. J. Present: Shri Vikram Disdt, Advocate fortt^ petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Paael Lawyer for^ie State/res^oti<le&ts. QMALOKDER (Passed on 15ul day of Mardh, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioaier subanite Ihirt Ifae appli^ition ofthe petftioner fbr grant ofconyassionate appoiirtmeat (Aanexar®P/3) on account ofdeath ofhis fafher namely R.ainjaaam Singh Yada% who was working as Accouirtatit in the Tribal Wettare Dqp^tnieiit a$id di^d in hamess on 30.09.1994, is still pending censi^ratiwi befere tihe respondent authorities. The petitioner has also madte rqpres^irtations 0^1 20.10.2009 and 10.02.2010 (Annexure P/5 colly.) butlfae same has ^so tiot been decided till date. 2. It is well settled that ttie sole object of aiiy eoiiyassioxiMe appoiiitmait scheme is to give succor to tfae tamily to tide over ^bie s^ddteti ftiiancial crisis befallen oa fhe depeiidents on account oftihi@ uirtimely demise of ite sole eaming member. The respondent auliiorities oyght to have decided the application of fhe petitioner at Ae earliest ^lch is still pendmg consideration. 3. Shri Bhaduri, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for ttie State/re^pondaats suhmits that m fhe event, the application aiid representatioiis, as stated above, are sfiUpending consideration, Ifae saiae shatl be considered and dedded in aecordajnce witfa law and on its ow^i maite and p@nspective, as ejqpeditiously as possible, preferably witNn a p^riod of tbur weetes from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. 4. In view of the above, according to lean^d coumel ^>pearmg for the petitioner, nothing sumves for adjudication atthis steige. 5. Accordingly, fhe wnt petiticm is< sposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge