x-x « w w ! w , 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHAT‘TISGARH, BILA$WJR W3. {S} N0. 5994- of 20W? PETITEONER Mahavir Sai Paikra, S/o 1am Shri DhopSai Paikra, Aged about 19 years, R/o Viilage and post Surangpaxli, Tall. —- Patthalgaon, Block Patthaigaon, Distn'ct Jashpur (C. G.) Versus State of Chllat’risgarh, Through Secretaiy Tribal Welfars, Department Mamxalaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distn'ct Raipur (C.G.) The Collectgr, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C. G.) 3. Th6 Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, District Jaehpux (C. G.) 4. The District Education Officer, Distn'ct Jashpur (C.G.) 5. Block Education Oiiicer, Block Patthalgaon, Distn'ct JaShp ur (C.G.) WRI’i‘ PETETION UNDER ARTECLE 226 3F THE CGNSTXTUTION GF ikDIA ggpearance: 8111i Dhani Ram Patel, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Paiidey, Pane1 Lawyer for the State on advance copy. RESPONDENTS oRAL (mama (09.10.2007) SUEHL KijfviAR $iNi-lgg J Heard finally with the consent oi'the parties. The brief facts are that the petitioner’s father was working as an Upper Division Teacher in Middle School, Buidega, Block Pathalgaon. District Jashpur {C.G.), which comes under the Tribal Welfare Department. He died in the harness on 2] 12/ 2003. After his death, an appiication for compassionate appointment was submitted by the petitioner, Which was ciuly forwarded by the Heacl Master of . » 2 ‘ W.P.(S) No.5994/2007 Middle School, Bulclega, which is clear from page No.21 of the Writ Petition Leaxned counsel for the petitioaer submits that though the application was submitted for compassionate appoiiltment, but no order has been passed on the said application anti as per the information of the petitioner, the same is lying in the ofiice of respondent No.3— Assistant Commissioner, Tiibal Welfare Department, District Jashpur (C.G.}. For the Time being, learned counsel makes a limited prayer that a direction may be issued to the respondents particularly respondent No.3 to - dispose of the appiication tiled for compassionate appointment. of the petitioner, which is pending in his office. This limited prayer made by leained counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by learned counsel for the State. However, learned counsel for the State submits that it is not clear from the pleadings and documents tiled alongwitb the Writ Petition as to whether any such application is pending till date or not. In the facts and circumstances, the aibresaid limited prayer is allowed. It is directed that if the application tiled for compassionate appointment has not been disposed of so far by respondent No.3, the same shall be disposed of as early as possible preferably within a period of 6O days from the date ofreceipt of the certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of Writ Petition and documents annexed with it. If the application has not reached to the office of respondent No.3 and it is in transit, respondent No.3 shall call the same from respondents No.4 & 5 and shall take appropriate decision on the said application in accordance with law and if any order has already been passed on the said application, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. if The petition stands finally disposed of. 3d]- i Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Shyna