& v /—-- 01 é w w IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI’ISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) , / RIT PETITION No. 153 /2005 .‘ /Kambodar Paikara, son of Late V‘LM Shrit Bhaskar Singh Paikara, , aged about 24 years, resident of 'xvWRicemm Para, Behind Mandi, Pithora, Tah. And Distt. Mahasamund (Ch‘hattisgarh) PETITIONER VERSUS RESPON DENTS The Union of India, through : the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (State v Reorganization Ceii), III Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. > / Crows W $¢$M MMC State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralay, Raipur (CG) State of Madhya Pradesh, through Secretary, Department of Agriculture, v Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) The Additional Director (Personnel) Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Viparan Board, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN HE NATURE OF MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR APPROPRIATE ‘w W V / I /V_ é WM HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETETION No, 159 0f2005 PETITIONER : Lambodar Paikara. VERSUS RESPONDEWTS‘ : The Union oflndia & Others. WRIT PETITION ULQQEE ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Present: A3 ' )w”, SB: Hon’bk Shri Satish K. Aggghotri, J. Shri Ajay Mishra, Acivocate. for the petitioner. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. G.A. for the StateJIespondent No. 2. ORDER go‘RAL) (Passed on 01$ day of April, 2010) The petitioner seeks a direction against the Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, Raipur for considering his case for appointment on compassionate basis on the ground that the father of the petitioner namely Bhaskar Singh Paikara, working as Chowkidar in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pithora, District Mahasamund, died in harness on 20.10.1999. It appears that the application of the petitioner was considered and rejected 0n 09.12.2003 ('Annexure P/3) by the respondent No. 4, on the grounri that Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board was not in existence at the time of death ofthe father ot‘the petitioner and as such, his appiication couid not be considered. The present petition has been iiied without impugnng the order dated 09.01.2003 and further the Board has not been impieaded as party-respondent. The petitioner cannot ciaim reliefagainst a party, which has not been impleaded as a party in the petition, and fuither Without impugning the order dated 09.12.2003, passed in his appiication. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for in this petition. Accordingly, the-writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.