.-^ ^w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 7475 of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ramkeshwar, age about 30 years, S/o Rahghunath Prasad R/o near Sitaram Kirana Stores, Indira Nagar, Bhilai, P.0. Supela, Teh. & Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Madhya Pradesh through Chief Secretary, Govt. ofMadhya Pradesh Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Chief Secretary, Govt. ofCUhattisgarh, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 3. Collector Durg, Distt. Durg (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WDIA) fSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Present : Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16"' day ofJanuary, 2009) With the consent ofthe.parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 1. This is a petition filed on 09.12.2007, seeking a direction for a direction to the State Govemment of MP/CG i.e. respondent No. 1 & 2 to provide an employment to the petitioner who happens to be brother ofRamagya, who died in police firing on 01.07.92. The matter was listed on earlier occasions on 02.01.08, 06.02.08 and 10.03.08. 2. The case ofthe petitioner is that, petitioner is brother ofRamagya who died due to police firing on 01.07.92 on the railway crossing, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). The petitioner and his father were fully dependent on Ramagya at the time of death of Ramagya. The State Government immediately announced ex-gartia compensation for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-and employment to member ofthe family. The petitioner was minor at that point of time. His father made several applications to the govemment but no employment could be given to him even on attaining the age ofmajority. He further submits that the amount of ex-gratia of Rs. 20,000/- is nothiag but a pittance against death ofan eaming member ofthe family. 3. The accident took place on 01.07.92. The payment ofRs. 20,000/- was made immediately. The petitioner did not question grant of compensation at that stage. After a period ofmore than 15 years, the petitioner questions the amount ofex- gratia as well as employment in the govemment service. 4. Per contra, Shri Alok Bakhshi, leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that only family member of the deceased i.e. either widow or son of the deceased, were granted employment in all the cases. The petitioner is not son of the deceased. He claims an employment on the basis of being brother, who was minor at the time ofthe incident. 5. The State Govemment has rightly denied employment to the petitioner, as even ifhe was dependent, he cannot be granted employment, as he was not a family member of the Ramagya. So far as, grant of ex-gratia payment is concemed, the same is not made on the basis of any mles or regulations, and even otherwise, the petitioner has not questioned for the quantum after more than 15 years. Thus, at this stage, the State Govemment may not be directed to mcrease grant of ex-gratia payment for whatever reasons it is. -^.. Having regard to facts situation ofthe case, this petition is devoid ofmerit and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. 7. Consequently, pending applications, ifany, stand disposed of. Sahu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge