RFMCH w\c§‘{]//_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT pE'rITmN lS) Noé‘?9 OF 2011 PETITIONER Smt Uma Bax, W1d0w of Late Shr1 Sanat Kumar Yadav aged about 39 years, R/o Gaya Nagar, Durg (CG). Versus P 1. State of Chhattlsgrh through Secretary Department of Urban Development DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipuf (CG). Municipal Corporation, Durg (CG), through its Commissioner. Commissmner, Mun1c1pa1 Corporation Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE W CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CD RESONDENTS / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlON (S) NO. 679 OF 2011 PETITIONER Smt‘ Uma Bai Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Pane! Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 4‘“ day of February, 201 1) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 23/12/2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3/Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Durg, by which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, has been rejected. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the'case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner namely Sanat Kumar Yadav (since deceased) while working as a Peon in the respondent department died on 28/11/2006 in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 13/09/2007 for grant of compassionate appointment, which has been forwarded with a recommendation to exempt the petitioner to file application within the stipulated period on the ground that she is a poor lady. However, the respondent authorities rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has not filed the application within a period of six months from the date of death ofthe deceased employee. Thus, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in View of the circular dated 02/02/2006, the dependents of the deceased employee is required to submit the application form for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of six months. The said circular was considered by this Court in umpteen number of cases with approval. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the circular dated 02/02/2006 with regard to compassionate appointment has been considered and approved by this Court in a catena of decisions. Clause 3 (9) 3 of the circular dated 02/02/2006 provides that “WW W a‘g' WWWWWW$W$WWW 'WW$3QW%6WH%WW$WWW mmsi wwwawqwarmawf‘aanmas‘t @Trr l”. Thus, the ground of rejection does not seem to be illegal or improper. s in the case on hand, the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 28-1 1-2006 and the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 13-9-2007 i.er after a period of 1O months. Thus, the application of the petitioner was rejected, as the same was not filed in accordance with the period prescribed under the policy, looking into the purpose of consideration of application for compassionate appointment. it is a trite law that compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the constitutional schemes of employment. Thus, the appointment on compassionate basis can be considered only in accordance with the State policy. Application made beyond the period of six months from the date of death ofthe deceased employee, is not entertainable. Thus, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the authority. in view of the foregoing, the writ petition‘is dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arm Sd/—'