•t:j '<1^=E^ :i EBIBIB^SM :SSSSSa89i HI6H COURT OF CHHATHSeARH AT BIl^S^IR Writ ADpeal fSl No. 185/2010 APPELLANT : Hemont Kumar Yackiv. S/o Late Shri Na-thu ftam Yodav, Aged ofcou* 33 years, Unempioyed, Resident at: Ward No.l5, Kaiiash Na9ar, Dhaindha Naka, DUR6 - 491001 (C.Q.) Versus RESPON&ENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Town Administration & tSevetepment, b.K.5. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur - 491002 (C&) 2. The Oirector, Directorate, Town Administration. Chhattisgarh, Raipur, 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg - 491 001 (C&) Writ ABpeal Under Section 2 of the Chhatt'isaarh Hioh Court' CAmeai to^&ivision BencM Act. 200& Hon'bie Shri I.M. Quddusi & Hon'bte Shri N.K. Agawai^JI, 'ressnt: Shri B.P. Rao, counsel for the appeliant. Shri Ajit 5in9h, Panel Lawyer for liie State. ORAL C«DER (Pdssad on 23rd day of June. 2010) Per I.tt. Quddusi. J. Heard. 2. The appelhnt has filed the writ oppeat against the order impugned dated 30-04-2010 in Writ Petition (S) No.6342 of 2008 passed by leamed Single Judge dismissin9 the writ petition. 3. The appellant's father was in service under 1he respondents who remained absent froin duty and as sudi a termination order was passed on 30-03-1993 terminating him 1:r? ^»vn's--:, ,^f"^,'\ '^ ": ^. :? ^sa*. ;; i9 yy1'"1'"""' from services on the ground of absence from duty. Thereafter, the mother of the appellcait filed a Civil Suit for declarution of his civil death afi his whereabouts were not known for even seven years. Consequentty, the Civil Court- possed a decree dechrine civit dea1+) of the fa-rher of the writ appellont on 04-10-2001. Thereafter, the writ appeltant claimed compassionate appointment. His representation was rejected vide order dated 02-03-2002 cnd 12-05-2006 on the ground that the legal heirs of the termincited employee are not entitted to get the compassionate cppointment. 4. Seing aggrieved by the order of leamed Single Judge which was disposed of as mentioned above, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal. 5. It is not disputed •t+iat the writ appetlant was aged about 16 years when the order of termination dated 30-03-1993 was passed. After att-aining the age of majority, he did not chatienge •t+ie order of termination of his father and 1+ierefore, it attained finality. In view of obove, it cannot be said -riiat the decjsion of rejecting the representotion by the respondents was wrong as cer'tainly the lega! heirs of the terminated employee cannot get compassionate oppointment. In view of above, we uphold the order passed by learned |te Judge and the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge K»r ^'..r .^?"z-