^ Coram APPELLANT PETITIONER: DIVISIONBENCH HON'BLESHRI RAJEEVGWTA, CJ. & HQN'BLE SHRISUNIL KUMARSINHA, J. WRTT APPEAL No. 09 of 2009 Satyam Kumar Gupta, S/o. Late Shri Ramchandra Gupta, Aged about 19 years, R/o; Viltage _Churkidih, P^t-Lamgaon.Di^rtet Saiguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Deparbnent of Fbrest, D.K.S. Bhawan, lyantralaya, Ra4}ur (C.G.) 2. The Principal Chief Gonservator of Forest, Suiguja Cirele, Amblkapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3. The Gonservator of Foreaft, Surguja Fore^ Area, District Surguja (C.G.) 4. The DMsional Forest Officer, North Surguja Forest BoeNxl, Ambilcapur,DlstrictSur9Uja(C.G.) WRrTAPPEAL UNDERSECTION 2 (WOF TME CHHAtfKGARHHlGHCOURTUWPEALTODiyiSION BENCH»ACT;2008 Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shutda, leamed counsel for the appellant. , Shri N.K. Agrawal, leamed Deputy Advocatas General for the State/respondents. JUDGMENT ith (19m February, 2809) The following judgment of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J.: ^fc *<- By altowlng I.A. No 01/2009, ttie documents flted ator^ wtth thls applicationare taken on record. 2. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard on admlssion. 3. Appellant -Satyam Kumar Gupta has flled this writ appeat against the impugned order dated 22.09.2008, pa^ed mW.P. (s) No.5298/2008. 4. The appellant/petitioner had fited the writ petition 1w the following reliefs: "10.1 It Isprayed that this Hon'ble Court may, kindly be pleased to call for the entire recontea Goncerning the case of the petitloner from the possession of the respondents for tts kind pemsal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindlybe pleased to issue an appropriate wrlt In the nerture of oertlorari quashlng and setting aside the impugned orders (communteation dated) 13.07.2007 and 14.08.2007. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may klndly be pleased to issue an appropriate vwtt in the nerture of mandamus directtng the respondents to consider representsrtion of the ptiBioner for compassionate appointment in respondents' department and be posted in the appropriate post as per the guidelin^ issued andas per the qudliricationofthepetitioner. 10.4 Any other relief/rellef, whlch this Hon'ble Court may thlnk Trt and proper in the facts and circum^ances of the case, with co^ of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner." 5. The petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking quashing of the orcters dated 13.07.2007 and 14.TO.2007 whereby the appellant's reqliest forcompassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents. S;-?R^,E,%^lgS@3E 'WWWI^SSSSS. VStsaaagxssaBt^ ii*a. ^3 6. The appeHant's father Ramchandra Gupte, who was working as Forest Guard died in hamess on 10.05.2002. The petitioner forthe firet time applied forcompassfonate appointment In the month of December, 2006. The pelftloner's appBcation fcr compasslonate appolntment wa&rejected by the respondents as the same was submftted after the prescribed peribd of three yeare. 7. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as the appellant on the date of death of his father was a mlnor, the respondents have erred in denying compassionate appointment to the appellant/petittoner on the ground that the appllcation was filed after llre prescribed period ofthreeyears. 8. tt is also relevant hwe to mention that the appellant's father died in the year 2002 and the family of the deceased Government servant has survived for a period of more than six years. 9. On due consideratlon of the submisstons of leamed counsel for the parties, we do not find any fnflrmlty in the impugned order, which may warrant interference in this intra - court appeal. 10. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismt^edand is hereby dismissedsymmant Sd/--:::11-. ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- g^^WARSlNHA Judge 1\fe-.?--.-.