<^ '^7 %. PETITIONER: INTHEHIGIiCOURT^FCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR WRITPETITION ( S ) No. 7^3 .?-0f 2009 taEaesh Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Shivrani Thakur, aged about 39 years, R/o Village Mahud- (B), Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (CG). Versus RESPONDENT8 1< »<^M^- ^^y '.-••' .'^ ^yy <:y The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, / Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, ^^\ / Raipur (CG). <\^-' 2. The Engineer-in-Chief , Water Resources Departnaent, / DistrictRaipur (CG). 3. The Chief Engineer, Water , Resoi.irces Department, Diu-g, ( District Diirg (CG). 4. The Executive Engineer, Tendula Project, Water Resoi-u-ce Departnierit, Durg, District Durg (CG). 5. The Gollector, Durg, District Durg(CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As statprl in tll^_c"M^Ei°^±l—-J—= 4^ HIGH COURT OF CS- VWrva •,0.7; Oi !ONi vsrsus .tp ne state 01 (*-b ^tC f^kfW^ li^liayaiiH Qt nj .4"4-i ffrt petition under Article 22S of the Constttution of india] Slnqie Bench : Hon'bie ShriSatish K. Aanihotri. J. Present:- Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsei forthe petitioner. \_/ S?'^la/s^ 1ra A.V. SfiOHSI'« La ^f^V^ ^S^tl^Tt £^'^14n^^rtT*^ TOF IHS I&I818. 'Passed on fhls 3'" day of December, 2009) 1. Wi'th the conseni of iearned counsel appearing *or ths partjes, the petition is heard finaily. 2. Learned counse! aDDearing for the oetitioner subntits thst pursuant to the order dated 1-8-2008 iAnnexure - P/13) isssaaH h*..* ^hiff ^ns;rf sy; VJ ©^%1 ^Jn ^.!i3A^ .-i'? •^^^S ^J^.sw^.a uy lUaiB ^<UUi& iil 'slf'.F^. i^Sj ivV.'^&V I Ue AWO il' Kumar Thakur v. The State of ChhatSsgarh & Otht ;^?if petitioner made a reisreseritation dated <1 •?^S f ^•yts'i&iif^is-f ;yo ^/-uuttAus s; VII) before the respondent authorities. Thereafter,' the appllcation of the petitioner was referred to the Coiiector, Durg on 13-4-2009 (Annexurs - P/12) for considering the cdse of the petitloner for grant of appointmeht on compassionate basis, in accordance wlth isw. 3. According to learned counsei appearing for the petstioner, the petifioner has not received any information with regard'to declsson taken by the authorities on his appiication tl!i date. More than six months have passed 'iivhen the purpose, :oT ^/' ifs appolntment on cornpassionate basis is 'oeing diiuted, as the appolntment on compassionats basls Is to provide succor and rellef to the dependant famiiy of the empioyee who dies 'hus, learned counsel prays that the authorities n'i ! iol JlSSo. a laUs. i^diai;=U ^*h «^. -^ I flk ^t •ltofc4' /t*^ rf^ c^ rf^ Jl^k. f^h 3*^ (T» S .T^ -A,f f^ V* ^*I it^h ^"i ^t- D£QifcCisQ 'so consiQsr sna pss; appropnats 'der ihs application of'lhe petitioner expedltiously iookjng Into the ietter and soiriS apointment. 4. in vlew of Toreaoing, the Coilector, Dura, Is directed to conslder and decide the case of-the petjtioner, in accordance vviih iaw and on Its own merits, as expedltiousiy as posslbie preferably withln a period of four v/eeks. Accordingly, wlth the aforesaid observation the wrst petltion is dssposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge