^' ^ Hon'ble S.B. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. '2-S'2-2. / t<S_ . -i lffll& l€'a6l?>h >iii5jgia' Ey'giiuy PETITIONER: Smt. Malti Bhadre, W/o Late Sliri Mohan Bhadre, Aged about 38 years, Caste Bhatra R/o Panarapara, Behind Mata Mandir, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS: ..•'' ^ ^\l^^¥"' ^cy"'..-- ..•;;\ oV' ^ d;' '^•^Js"' >t t <'t\v' ,^'\'-: .^/5'~. ..••'' ^' c0^ ^ °_.^ VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Departnient ofHome Affairs, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The Inspector General of Police, (Administration), Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Suprintendent ofPolice, /^ Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh QV^w ^ 4. State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Secretary General Administration Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, (M.P.) ^5. Union oflndia, Through the Secretary, Department ofPersonnel & Trainmg, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi WRI'KEETmON UNDERARTiCfE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION -OWlNDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBTION. CERTIORARI. AND ANY OTHER WRITS, DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS. The petitioner named above respectfully submits the particulars ofthepetition as under: - d g^^jy^^yjjg XI-HC-22 ~3^ ^WvFf, 'S^WiS, f^ 3n??c^i {?:B3T 311^1 ^n7T^"^ft7T "•^ fy 'r> ^jC..C'?.$.SSJ.?.6.. sii^TCiiwgt't; 11.5.2006 Shri A. Devangan, Advocate foij the petitioner. • Shri Satish Gupta, Dy. Govt.A<|v. for the State. Heard. The main'grievance raised by her husband, who was working as C^nstable in the Police Department died <»• in hamess in the year 1996, therefor^, she h8S?app!ied for appointment on compassionate ground, but nothin .h^. Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur 4 consideration vide Arinexure P-2 and considered for compassionate appoinj respondent No.2 and respondent Ncj falr, just and reaspnable, therefore, '*l<<id<!)-i tIIiRif'? fest tf^5TC ^ •BfSgiT <Hlt?t the petitioner in this petition is that has been heard. Thereafter, the petitioner haa^Tiiade representati^n to the respondents and the icommended.the case .of petitioner for P-3, even then her case is not being tment. Learned counsel for the petitic^ner submitted.that the petitioner has already made representation. to the r^spondent, which is not being decided, therefore, the petitipner may be allo'(?ed to make a fresh representation'to 2 be directed to decide thesame, to which leamed State counsel has no o^jection. The prayer made by leamed C(j>unsel for the petitioner appears to be the petitioner is allowed to make a detailed representation to responde^t No.2 within a period of two weeks from today-and in tum respondeiit-Ijfo.2 shal! decirile therepresentation pf the petitioner and pass appropriate o^-ders considering the grievances of the petitioner in accordance with polic^r deeision of the State Govemment regarding cximpassionate appointmerjt within a period a three months from the date of receipt ofthe representatii|3n. With the direction aforesaid, tl}e petition stands disposed of. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No. 18^2/06 also s'tands disposed of. ^. Certified copy as per rules. Sd.1- t_.C. Bhadoo .iudge 9^7