^y 't &^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUEE AT BXUUSPUR CHHftTTISGftRH. Writ Petition No o£ 2005 Petitioner: ^Ramavtar Maravi, aged about 27 y^ars, son of Shri Jhaam Singh, resident of village - Bodrt, Chakarbha'fca,Distt, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Respondent^ ^'^ Chhattisgarh State Ele.ctricity / ..^^ Board, through - Its Secretary, ^./'rS/ f Head Office - Danganiya, Raipur .^^^ ( CG) \>- 'x'^' / ./o\yAf" .-•••'' o "A^ .**' )\N '••' .t*' ^' ^Kif^ 2. ..** ^^ ~^i*)L' z- *^» ...••'.V.V\(?'' 2./ Additional Superiatendent Engineer, , C.S.E.B. Cxty Division, Bilaspur :(CG) .-. S^IT'UWVEIBIE^Ml'lSSSlXS 226/2V^^^^C^^^^ ~\,.^:INDIA.;'. , : . . . ::...:^W'i.SK;. ":i!^ yx ^•^,? •"_ : • •- OH QOT^TT.Sa ^T3tl ^savQsis.xysas aaasviia iv aan.tVsiaQ.c 50 J.aaoo asxH aHi NI a^i'^y XI-HC-22 W^T'RT fiFiwsn^r .^^' :ss&: :»-f! 3^ siraRpr, ®TftaIre,l°)<')i«y 3l|<;S;| <4^<T1 iwwi sn*ii<n ^kl.-J'.^-M^/.0^H^ 200 fcre% 3fl^l 9'«llW; *wId41-f*llK<-i>'fffSfSl <Rl^l< ^iSBf^ftsn^r II.T.gQOe Shri Vinod Deshmukh, lea|'ned counsel forthe petltioner. Shri A.S Gaharwar, learnep counsel for respondent No.1. Shri S.K. Beriwal, learned tsounsel for respondent no.4. Heard. I By this writ petition under) Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a dire^ion to the respondent - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board to consider tl)e case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The case of the petitioner i^ that his father namely late Jhaam Singh died in hamess on 20.01.2000 while workjng as Lineman Grade-ll at Bitaspur. The death certificate is Annxture-PC. The p^titioner applied for compassionate appointment on 28.06.2000 and the receipt of| the same is Annexure-P/1. The case of the petitioner was not considered ^nd in the meantime, on accourt of the reorganization of the State, the |State of Chhattisgarh was carved out w.e.f. 01/11/2000 and thereafter the ((tadhya Pradesh Electricity Board was also bifurcated w.e.f. 15/11/2000 and (phhatti^arh State Electricity Board came into existence on thatday. As per th^ provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganlsa^ion Act, 2000 the assets and liabilities and employees of undivided Board wer^ to be distributed among the MPEB and the CSEB. Vide order dafed 6th Janu^ry 2004, the Govemment of India, Ministry of Power, issued an order in which if| has been mentioned that representatives of (Ift^y^) XI-HC-22 sn^Tqir 'iN^sn^i' ShW^ ^f^tl 'S^ ••^W\v\^,w-i5\»'w,&di*<y <<si cn II*ICTI sniiw 3T1^?T ^Mi^^^ 200 Rre^ 3(1^1 sni<W«Rn -^r" .RrafepfrTWRffft'te^^RZR ^gri^iTsn^r both the States agreed in a mee^ing taken by Secretary, Power on 20n March 2003 that thedivision of emplov|ees would be in line with policy adopted for division of employees of Madhya pradesh Government. In Para 2, it has been mentioned that the matter has b^en considered and in partial modification of provisional order dated 12 Aprjl 2001 so far as relating to the division of employees it has been decided fi[ lines followed by DOPT for alloij Government of erstwhile Madhya atly to divide the poste and employees on the |ation of posts and employees of the State Pradesh for making atlocatlon of posts and persons to the successor Electricify Board of MPEB on the principte that posts relatable to territorial jurisdiction of ^ successor State may be altotted to respective State and similarly employees beloitiging to such sub State territorial cadres being allocated to concsmed State and or(ly dividing the remaining posts and employees between the twoStates, the Gover|iment of India has decded to appoint a three membere State Advisory Committe^ to be headed by ttie same person who was the Chairman of SAC appointed by IpOPT for Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, on thls principle the empioyeesof MPEB|who were working in the territory of newly created Chhattisgarh are to be all|3cated to the successor Chhattisgarh State Eleotrioity Board on the principle and line followed by DOPT for atlocation of posts and employees of the State Govemrtient of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. It is admitted position thatttie petitlon^r's father.at the time of death i.e. 20.01.2000 was working at Bilaspur which falls ir| the temtory of CSEB and when the petitioner (Ift^y^) XI-HC-22 an^rw f^iwsn^r sniroyRn ^^' ,f :^ y^f 1 3^'':2(PTRPT, WTn<ris, IsK'iray 451 Cfi *111MI f»W STT^T ..ui.-.^.-.^u^^ ^•b-A 200 3<l^i(l ^WWflfBtT •a>- had applied for compassionate appoirtment dated 30.01.1997 was have been considered under that the State of Chhattisgarh has also ta! employees who died on or after appointment. Therefore, the petiti application under the policy dated 30. a||>poinfrnent the policy for compasstonate i^i existence. Therefore, his case ought to poliij^ by the MPEB/CSEB and on the same line )|cen a decision that the dependants of those qi.11.1997 are entitled for compassionate ioner is entitled fbr oonsideration of his i.itl.1997. For the foregoing reasons, tti CSEB is directed to consider the appointment in accordancewith the Certified oopy as per rules. "bi^fa'ifl.f ^i^ciTff Ta^Q <Ri'wi< ^grf^iT^n^T petition is allowed and the respondent - |case of the petitioner for compassionate dated 30/01/1997. pijilicy Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge "^l.y^^ •f ('ft^y^r) 7^ .'%S} ^;i^Si KSBi ^•^. E'-ii E3