HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHFU DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J Writ Petition (227) No.7080 of 2009 Petitioner Non-Aoplicant Responctents AflplKants Vs 1. 2. 4. 5. Damodar Prasad Tiwari S/o D.P, Tiwari, aged about 67 years , Caste Bramhin, Ocoupation Retired B.S.P. Employee, R/o House No.1/C, Street No.10, Sector-1 (Ek), Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) Poornima Bai, aged about 40 years, W/o Late Sadhuram, Caste Satnami; Ku. Surekha, aged about 13 years, D/o Late Sadhuram; Ku. Shasht, aged about 09 yeare, D/o Late Sadhuram; Ku. Banita, aged about 07 yeare, D/o Late Sadhuram; Ku. Anita, aged about 05 yeare, D/o Late Sadhuram; Respondents No. 2 to 5 are minors through their mother Smt. Poorntma W/o Late Sadhuram, All R/o Near Shyam Kirana Dukan Siddharth Nagar, (Kosanala), Police Station Supela, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) ORAL ORDER (3r° December, 2009) Dhirendra Mishra. J Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel forthe petitioner. This petition is directed against the order dated 9 October, 2009 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Durg whereby the petitioner's application for directing the respondents/claimants to array one contractor Subelal Verma as a party in fte compensation case, has been rejected. Shri Bhaduri submits that the deceased was employed by the said contractor, who was entmsted with ttie construction work and he died while in employment of the said Subelal Verma and as such, he was a necessary party in the compensation case filed by the respondents herein. However, the Commissioner has rejected the application for arraying the said SubelaL Verma as a party. ^5T\ d' "^ i:sgSia>. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that there is no pleading by the claimants in their claim petition against the said Subelal Verma. Even the petitioner has not filed any document to show that Subelal Verma was engaged in the construction work as a contractor. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference. Accordingly, the petition being without substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge H ri&s^t^_