SIHGLE BEHGH ^M^. ^•^^•^TS^i p.^-w"'^-'^: p,GS^^': ^" ^86-""" / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION^JNO. OF 2010 BETWEEN Laichu Ram Bhagat s/o Late Bhandluram, aged about^ ^_ tl))Lf'^ years, R/0 Village Tatidand, Post Semarkachar, Tehsil baghicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER ,:;:<sl1'"^ ^ rr-T. ^. l^'/"'.'^/ ^v^ \^ 'S) AND 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of Tribal and welfare, Mantralay, D.K.S.building, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Commissioner, Tribal, Ravi Shankar University Campus, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3- Asst. Commissioner, TRIBAL, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS ^- WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSrrTUTION OF /ND/A I, ^ WHy^i '%.. ' ^^'^y ^yy^ ^^ ^^^ "^sssfe^ 3TT^T^T ^i<=h 371^1 5h^ir-h ^f^a ^ ^TaET r^||<L||^|<L|, ^Tl1^^(o, f^<r11<-iy _..L!fSiam/l^ WHWr^bW^ 'f^^ST" '^ ^nt^'^n^'^f^T fSB : Hon»bleShri Manlndra 10.5.2011 Shri Rakesh Sahu, com Shri N. Naha Roy, Pane] Heard on admission. This petition has been order dated 28.1.2009 (Ann^ cM^?<rt<4ll 'HFT^f ^ 1T1C^ <p3l^l< ^ S^R ^n^r Mohan Shrivastava, J.1 sel for the petitioner. Lawyer for ttie State. leamed counsel for the petiti| |ffled by fhe petitioner aggrieved by |xure P-3) by which application for grant of compassionate appoi|itment has been rejected. AssaiUng the correctnejss and validity of aforesaid order, ^ner argued that fhe application for grant of compassionate appo|ntment could not be moved on the date the fatlier of the petitio^er died, because he was working as daUy wage employee and u^ider ftie scheme of compassionate appointinent fhe benefit of jcompassionate appointment is not available to dependents of a (^aily wage employees. Therefore, the petitioner did not make any ^pplication. Later on, when an order was passed on 4th October, 2J008 (Annexure P-1) regularizmg fhe services of the deceased- Bhdffidlu Ram, fhe petittioner submitted application for grant of com{Jassionate appolntment. He submits that in such circumstance6, the respondents ought to have considered fhe application^ of the petitioner for grant of [TTH. :? .-;£=£gS>.;s' vXI-KC-22 •^-,^;',^..- ...-.^^^"" >^T !%>3n§[?r 9r>^ir-D 'MI \ • \ ^s^ r^Ni<n^, ^Ti1<H^i<o, [^<ni<-i^< 31T^T ^^ WR^T'SFilTra?""""***'*****"********'"****"**'^ 200 'fN^ST' 31T^T'^H^R'^Tf -? compassionate application tn view of fhe appointment njotwifhstanding fhe delay in making circumstances of the case. pecupiar haild ri^ht On fhe other State/respondents submitted| eould not be claimed as of accordance wifti the policy further submits fhat und< appointment promulgated by| amended vide order dated appllcation for grant be submitted wifhin a period of deceased-Govt. servant after expiry of ftie spedfied considered. claimed as of right. Compas; appointment. The provision Ghi^tcn^1ri ^i<-i<riT^ Fs*^ <f^t^i< ^3^<R3T?^T leamed counsel for fhe fhat compassionate appolntment and the same can be granted tn <(>f compassionate appointment. He ;r fhe policy of csompassionate the State Govt. on 10.6.2003 as February, 2006 (Annexure R-l), appointment is required to |of 6 months from the date of death fhe policy clearly stipulates fhat jperiod, the application wiU not be 2lld of comp^ssionate anki It is trite that comp^ssionate appointment cannot be onate appointment can be claimed only within fhe four-comeris of tfae poUcy of compassionate ^ontained in Annexure R-l clearly stipulates that application is required to be made within a penod of 6 months. Submission ofj leamed coiinsel for the petitioner ( fhat as fhe order of regular at>pointment of his father was issued [^' ,,XI-HC-22 p\< 9h4-jlch RT^T l^\3Tlt?T FF ^iia Braveen "3^ ^l^ld^, ^Tlt^^Ko, I^TRTy 3nip?r xi^r^ HW^it ^^^..•*—.—.*....——...-^F^ 200 'f^r 3T[it?T'^TT^R ^Tf^T -3- after his deafh, ttierefore, fl: matter of consideration for 1 cannot direct grant of comp fact that the application However, tf fhe State C extraordinaiy situation to basis, fhe petitloner^s case ^e application was moved, coiild be a pie Govemment. However, this Oourt ^tssionate appointment in view of fhe Ihas been moved after 6 monfhs. iovt. considers fhe sgffne as an cc|asider the application on some policy i4ay be considered. With fhe aforesaid c disposed of. <=M^(<r<^Ti 'WT^f ^ 'ft^t <p3i^i< ^T 3T^HT 3TliRT Ibservations, fhe petition is fmally Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Jude [^