^ . o 10 SIN61 E BENCH -^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITIONNO. S35) /2005 PETITIONER MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL, SON OF LATE SHRI MAHESH PRASAD AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KAWARDHA, MUDPAR, NEAR BUDHA MAHADEV MANDIR, KAWARDHA, DISTRICT KABEERDHAM (CG) VERSUS '^- RESPONDENTS^ .^ ...*"'s^ ^M^ ^i%^ ^sv"" ^•'\^r/\ ^yyy ^ ^<^ STATE OF CHHATTISGRH, THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) THE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTR. DORECTORATE, RAIPUR (C.G.) THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ' DISTRICT. RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) 4. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, XJDAIPUR, RAJNANDGAON (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226'. /227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, \AM HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3391 of 2005 Petitioner: Maaish Kumar Agrawal Vcrsus Respoiidents: State of Clihattisgarh & ofhers Sin^e Bench; Hon'blc Mr. Justicc Satish K. Agaihotri. Sliri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioiier. Ssit, Auju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents, ORDER (Passcd on this 28th day of Febn3ary, 2007) Thc followmg ordcr oftlic Court is passcd by Satish K. Agpihotri, J. 1. By fhis petition the petitioner chaUeuges fhe validily offhe order dated 8.6,2004 (Annexure P/1) whercunder, fhe application offhe petitioner for appoiiitment 011 compassionate basis, has been rejected by fhe respoudent No.3, 011 the ground of delay ie. not submitted wifhiu a period of three monfh, froni the date of death of the employee. 2. Accoidmg to fhe petitioner, his fafher namely Sliri Maliesh Pra^sad Agsawal, while working as Accountant m ffae Govenmient Higher Secondai^r School, Udaipur, District- Rajnandgaon, died ia hamess 011 11.8.2CX)1. Thereafter, the petitioiier, beiag sou ie. dependent and legal heir, approached the respondent No.4 on 10.10.2001 and 15.11.2001 for asnsalermg his case for appoiutQQLent. The petitioner also sent aa application on 5,12.2001 (Amiexurc P/5) by registered letter to fhe respondents No. 3 and 4. ^ 3. Tlie District Educatioii Officer, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 8.6.2004 (Annexarc P/l), whiclx isjimpugned herem,has rejected the application of fhe petitioner 011 the groiuid that fhe application was filed after prcscribed period ofthree montlis. The District Education Officer has completely ignored the fact ftiat wifliia a period ofone monfh fhe petitioner has approached fhe coiicenied Principal for his appomtment. May be fhe petitioner was not aware ofthe fact fhat the appUcation was to be made to some other ofScer. Even otherwise, if the date of application was 5.12.2001 (Amiexarc P/5) and fhe appUcatioa sent by registered postwas received 011 24.12.2001, ifthe rcceipt ofthe application by registered post is takeu iato consideration, the delay appears to be only about aweek. 4. The respoiident aufhority ought to have considered the earlier applicatiou dated 5.12.2001, filed witli the respondent No.4, for the purpose oftmiitation but the same has not been done. 5. In view offhe forcgoing, fhe oider dated 8.6.2004 (Annexurc P/1) and 24.12.2001 (Annexure P/7) deser^es to be aiid are quashed. Accordiiigty, tlie rcspondeats/aufhorities are directed to consider tlie case of the pelitioner for conipassionate appoiiitment, m accordance with their owa circular, No onier as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Ag"ihotn Judge Thakur