WR 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAS§£g 1 WRIT PETITmN No. 4% L! OF 2n03_ PETITIONER : i 3m Rfo Village ~ AkalWah« > Imjgir, Dfst Imy’gir—Chmgm (CG), _ VERSUS ‘ RES?0NDENTS : 913 The Sm of Msgarh, Mugh J Settlanmt Chham‘sgaxh RaTpur (CG) i (2) SettlcmmtOfiiom- Elaspur' (G43) i; Cmmnissionm Em Ablnlekn éwi‘ (4) [@my Collector, fQmtIpdCG) }gnjgn-. r .9 IT PETITION UIA 226/227 OVgE CONSITIT TION OFIN’mg N_, L.— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLLASPUR k § 1 Writ Petition No. 1854 of 2003 Petiu'oner Pushpendra Kumar Kaushik Versus Respondents The State of (LG, & Othgrs Single Eench : Hon’ble Mr. JusticE Satish K. Agnihotyi. Shri Sunjl Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. 8111i Sunil Otwani, panel lawyer for mspoudents. ORAL ORDER (9th March, 2005) ‘ Tha following order of the Court was passed by satish K. Agnihctri, J. The father of the petitioner, late Shn' Bhagirathi Kaushik was employed as Reverme Inspector, in the oilice of the Settlement Officer, at Bilaspur. He died on 1.9,99, in harness. The petitioner, who happens to be son and dependant of late Shxi Bhagirathi Kaushik, tiled an application on 279.99 (Annexure P~1) for compassionate appointinent. The Deputy Collector, Janjgir Champa, (Land. Records Branch) vide order “dated 12.7.2000 (Annexure 13:4) informed to the peh‘tioner mat the petitioner would not be appointed as Assistant Grade-Ill, on the ground that the petitioner did not possess Hindi typing test certificate, as such the petitioner can be aopointed for Patwari Prasikshan after obtaining the permission from Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Gwalior. No order as on date has been passed. The petitioner has filed this petition, seeking a direction against the respondents for: grant of apoointment on the compassionate ground, O[ k4 4. This Court in a batch 0f ptztitigns, in WP. No. 2796] 2004 along with othar corumctsd matter deah'ng with appointment of depcndants of deceasad employws, on compassionate. basis, passed the ordor on 20th Docember, 2005, to tho following offectz “In vi€w of tho submissions mads by learned counse1 appearing for the partiss, Without axpmssing any opinion on tho merits of the. case, in the opinion of this Court, ends ofjustice. will be served if a dilection is given to the. State and the authorities concerned to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners! dependants of the employees who died on 1.11.1997 and thereafter in accordance with the policy which was in fame at the time of death of the employee. Each and every individual case will be decided and if the person found eligible, appointinent orders will be issued as early as possible on or before 30th April,_2006., The petitioners are also directed to render due co—operation to the atithoiities. It is made clear that if any grievance still remains, the petitioners may avail the remedy available under the law including filing of therpetition \ before this Court”, 5. This case is squarely covered by the order dated 20th December, 2005, passed by this Court in WP. No. 2796f2004, with several other conneéted matters. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in accordance with the order dated 20th December, 2005 (Supra). No order as to costs. / -/ \ sa/- . , , l. satish KAgnihomg- ‘_ Judge “rs r, is