^'^W'^f^'ww^^.SSSf^^ <t c \d IN THE HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR y^ WRIT PETITIQN NQ. / 2004 PETITIONER 1) Krishna Ku. Bhaina S/o Late Bahorik Singh Aged about 33 years, R7o- village Bhaiskattal, Ward No-13 Tehsil/P.S- Korba Dist- Korba (C.G) •^•>^ '^>' RESPONDENTS Near Bajrangbali Mandir, Kasinagar, Korba P.S- Rampur, Korba (C.G) Versus L^j^ !" ^:^ ^'^'"' ^. .^e^- /^ h- ^- -^- 4. Chhattisgarh State EIectricity Board, Through itsSecretary, C.S.E.B., Raipur Raipur (C.G) ChiefExecutive Engineer, C.S.E.B.Korba(CG) State ofMadhya Pradesh, Through Secretary, M.P.E.B, Rampur, Jabalpur (M.P) Joint Secretary (Karmik)-l M.P.E.B, Jabalpur (MP) Union of India, Through Ministry of Personnel & Training (State Reorganization Cell). Khan Market New Delhi. WRIT PETITION UNDEk . .RTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION TO ^0^ c, DQ JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. c>' L ..!L^._.J._^____.._.,,._,_ 1 iiiill^iifeiN^jiHaif^^ .M^" :^. ^'^siMl^ai^ '\\, ; '.. '3||::| .aa^fe.,,^, .;, THE CONSTITUTION OF {o" i^- XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^FW^T ^TW^cT -^ w r-l -^.. ^- 3^ r^i^icrt^, ^Tfl^Ko, f®tdH^< 311^1 M51CH ^.^.fc ...>5S2^o0^ ^l^dl $»>^icb ^n^T^RrreK^cT 7.7.2006 Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, learited Shri A.S Gaharwar, Shri P.S Nair, learned learned counsel for respondent^ 3,' Shri S.K. Beriwal, learne<| Heard. counsel for the petitioner. learn|ed counsel for respondents 1 and 2. ISenior Advocate, with Shri P.S Koshi, dent^ 3,4 and 6. counsel for respondent no. 5. This writ petition has separate cause of action. compassionate appointment on learned Advocate for petitionei withdraw the writpetition with The petition of petitioner No. 2 aforesaid. By this writ petition, the prayed for a direction to the bfeen petitioner for compassionate apij>ointment cbj^t<n41Ti ^i^^T^te^tiRi^K ^3Tl^T3TI^T filed by the two petitioners for their As the petitioner No.2 is daiming [account of the death of her husband, the No.2 seeks permission of the Court to l|>erty to file a fresh petition on her behalf. |s dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty ^etitioner namely Krishna Ku. Bhaina has ijespondente to consider the case of the is that his father late Shri Bhahorik Singh Grade-111 in the ofRce of the Executive and he died on 5/9/1997 on which the The case ofthe petitione< was working as Plant Supervis(>r Engineer (BMD - I), HTPS, Kort)a petitioner made an application f^»rcompassionate appointment. However, (^^fe^) XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r RFTW^TI^T ^n^^cT ^»»1^^ iffc ;^, 3:^T^Nlc"l^, ^Tn<M^<o, Rtcrtl^y 3TT^?T *ITR^TT^HT<b^.1</..S^2^/2^ f^^ 200 3TI^?T ^<TTW ^cf -2-- chl<4ld^ ^i^<nTffte^t'<fa<^K ^'3Tf^R'3:T7^T •f the application remained pen<|ling and on 28/2/2004 the ChhatUsgarh State Electricity Board, the fij (Annexure-P/5) inwhich it has Ij employees who died on or after| appointment. It is an admitted ^ "st respondent herein, issued a circular leen mentioned that the dependents of the 15/11/2000 are entitled for compassionate losition that the father ofthe petittoner died in the year 1997 and in the sar(ne year he applied for the compassionate appointment and at that time th|e policy with regard to the compassionate appointment dated 30/01/1997 ^as in force. The reply of the Chhaffisgarh State Electricity Board is th^t since it came into existence w.e.f. 15/11/2000, therefore, as pe| employees who died on or after| r the policy the dependants of those 15/11/2000 are entitled for compassionate appointment. It is also an admilted position that the father of the petitioner was the employee of the erstwtjiile Madhya Pradesh Electrtcity Board and on account of the Madhya Pracflesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 the Stete of Chhattisgarh was carved out w. Pradesh Electricity Board was Reorganisation Act, 2000 the e.f. 01/11/2000 and thereafter the Madhya ^teo bifurcated w.e.f. 15/11/2000. As per the provisions of sub-Section (|4) of Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh assets and liabitities and employees of undivided Board were to be dis|ributed among the MPEB and the CSEB. Vide order dated 6th January 2004. the Govemment of India, Ministry of (^^f^) s?- -^ XI-HC-22 *< INCTT ffi^icfi 3^' •^l^ld'il, ^TO'M'Ko, fs)dlti^< ^Mm.:S£^^ 3TI^T^)T f^ri^w^T $h^icb;Rf^cT $bHTch^ 3TT^T^<rT^K^f?cT -3- Gbi^F<n<{lri ^i^<nT^teT^l'<Ri«j< ^^rf^Tw^r modificlation Power. issued an order in representatives of both the State^ Power on 20th March 2003 that • with policy adopted for divisk Govemment. In Para 2, it has considered and in partial 2001 so far as relating to the di finally to divide the posts and for allocation of posts and erstwhile Madhya Pradesh for the successor Electricity Boarc) relatable to territorial jurisdiction| respective State and similarly territorial cadres being allocatedj remaining posts and employees| of India has decided to appoint w.e.f. 15/11/2000 the Madhya and on this principle the emplo|y territory of newly created Chhattisgarh State Electricity ttie Iwhich it has been mentioned that agreed in a meeting taken by Secretary, division of employees would be in line 4n of employees of Madhya Pradesh Iteen mentioned that the matter has been Rc|ation of provisional order dated 12th April i|/ision of employees it has been decided e^fiployees on the lines followed by DOPT eijnployees of the State Govemment of nf)iaking allocation of posts and persons to of MPEB on the principle that posts of a successor State may be allotted to ^mployees betonging to such sub State jto concerned Stete and only dividing the Ibetween the frwo States, the Govemment three members Committee. Therefore, pradesh Electricify Board was bifureated ^ees of MPEB who were working in the are to be allocated to ttie successor ^oard ttiat is the employees who were Chhattijsgarh (^^f^) XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T RpTT^W^T 9FHW^cT ^TT<^^ tt.^^ '^ j ^w w 3^" -^l^l^t^, ^Tn^ll<o, fc|dl^< 311^1 45|cb N IWTT $b<4|Cft^.W:^..(V°.-.^2.5^0^. 1^^' 3TT^T?^<TTW^1?cT ^- working before that date in the the CSEB and the employees Pradesh came to the share of was working in the territori^l petitioner's liability of compassi^nate the CSEB and the CSEB is| entitled for comp^issionate appointment. W4is petitioner was compassionate appointment policy for compassionate appo| Accordingly, the respondent-<|: application of the petitioner 30/01/1997 and in this case th4 applicable. For the foregoing reasoi Bhaina is allowed and the case of the petitioner for the policy dated 30/01/1997. Certified copy as per rul^s <=bi^f<n41^ w^ff^te^ <F3i<^i< ^3Tf^T3^T ^tate of Chhattisgarh came to the share of ^o were working in the State of Madhya fhe MPEB. As the father of the petitioner jurisdiction of the CSEB, therefore, appointment lies on the shoulder of the only appropriate Board where the ^issionate appointment. The application for made within time and at that time the Intment in existing was dated 30/01/1997. pSEB is duty bound to consider the in accordance with the policy dated policy dated 28/-2/2004 cannot be made i|is, the petition of petitioner - Krishna Ku. resp^ndent - CSEB is directed to consider the comptassionate appointment in accordance with Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (Lll^^l<9^) wy -^^