Z cOURT 1’3?3'E‘$ EXEWTE aménncmm No. morn-maim- BICQJOE A5 S?ECIF3E0 ON wEWLE I & R OF THE COURT FEEs ACT 1870. BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATvBILASPUR (C.G.) ‘E i WRIT APPEAL No. L6 ' /201'o r t (L ; WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2.0F THE CHHATTISGARHI HIGH COURT jAPPEAL TO DIVISION'BENCH) ACT, 2006 ' t APPELLANTS State oEf Chhattisgarh, :1. / ’ t Throuéh the Secretary, ’ . %§?%¥§§;S) Department ofPublicr Works, D.K.‘Sj Bhawan, Raipur (CG). D artment of'Public Works, Balod Dlstrlct Durg (CG ) VERSUS * RE / ‘1 , > Taman Lal, ‘ S/o Late Shri Hariram, Aged 18 years, R/o Village Bharritola, Tahsil — Dalli Rajhra, District Durg (CG.) “ r -‘ :s5 rt? +a+¢l~orch4++isg¢ma; da ' ‘ T ar aman L Tha‘r fe appom‘hng aufhorl‘ry shall guide fhg fgmi.ly_m,e,_mbe f fhe deceased and shall mak p compassiona‘re ground However in case no one would be ligible for appom‘rmen'r m fha‘f falmly, he shall send The v’formahon To fhe Head of fhe Deparfmenf m thafiregqrdh ule 9 (2) Is quofed herein below — L I “11mm Wm all T321, '5’??? tn 11H 21mm dam if Fm‘ Il' I ‘mmfaa 111m in hghamf arm’crom gas mg d ma? alimmf 'fmgha §a Prien‘ha 31m?! tral $1 m warm Hrfaafa a? mar wt; a? qhan ad Eur—visa WW I Elf? 11w a? wan Il m‘ ‘. am mar um Haw WT g’ a? aw? war Wmmm o? ‘ ‘ ‘q‘m m m Elam—ct wan a? Ham ml Emu mum I" e msfan'l' case the mo'rher he responden‘l’ was an Illl'rera're lady and The respondenf was mmor a? 'l'he 'hme of d W I ea'rh of his fafher fherefore as soon as he became maJor he moved The apphca‘hon himself for glvmg hlm appom‘rmenf ’ n compassiona're ground I‘r Is n01" The case of The wrIT ppellanT ThaT aT anv pomT of Time clause (2) of The Rule 9 was complied wuTh and Widow of The deceased was guided and 7 ny prescribed apphcaTmn form was prowded To her In The meanTIme This was a dispuTe wheTher The deceased as a permanenT Gangmen or noT and The said dlspuTe remained m exlsTence as raised by The wrlT appellanT 'in heir reTurn To The wrIT peTITIon which was decuded by The earned Single Judge dlrecTIng ThaT m ThaT regard This CourT aslalready decided m The case of éovmd & oThers Vs I STaTe of C G & oThers reporTed In 2007 (2) CGLJ 29 and”, direcTed ThaT The 5TaTe shall consnder The facT as To w fj Gangmen m The work charged esTabhshmenT m The llghT of T nd; he decision of This CourT rendered In Gownd (supra) a T ‘ ”l h if " f heTher/faTher of The respondenT herein was The permanenT h rs ; I i . ao them ravqnableaerhe rescribed form for movmg apphcahofn for aphainfmenf Vo'n :’ e im : R 1 _ l f I h o ‘zf } l ‘o " i a ‘ ‘1a I [ 1 ' w 5; -\ ‘i‘‘‘‘ 'h ' a nsider The enh‘tlemen‘r of The fhereafier re Sfare shH co ué'i‘r e’ritioner for, comassonafe apomfmen‘r m accardance i‘fh t o ’ic earne counse for fhe wrl‘r appeHanf has placed rehance on he Judgmen‘r of The Hon ble Apex CourT In The maTTer of sh Kumar Nagpol vs 5To1'e of Haryana & oThers rTed m (1994) 4 SCC 138 m whuéch IT has been mTer- aha held ThaT compassionaTe appoInTmenT cannoT be granTed a lapse of a reasonable period rwhlch musT be speCIfIed l‘The rules The considerahon for such employmenT Is noT esTed rIghT which can be exercused a‘l' any Time m fuTur obJecT bemg To enable The f mlly To geT over Th lal crlsls which IT faces aT Th \Tlme of The deaTh o employmenT canno Iclalmed and offered wha‘l'ever The lapse of Time and afT The rsis ovr In lThe above regard we have perused fhe Rules which ITse el'e ImemenTe or Te IrsT Time In The ear 203 as T S of hh ak an cp pp p h d h o eriod has been speciie To move applIcaTIon under ules However The Hon'ble Apex ourT as oserved T ‘ fTer crISIs Is over The compassIonaTe appomTmenT sho oT be given buT In The InsTanT maTTer There was a ban o he compassIonoTe appomTmenT and ThereafTer ban was; ‘ 'IfTed by- ImplemenTaTIon‘Jlf The Rules Iregardlngié‘g’, w p pi p m w he p Iy ,. Ld l ‘ T g U _ ‘ rp 1 e e é o f l e f ' ,~ e T¥ ‘ er i ci Is e . l ‘w pld f h f y 0 he i TaTe, ChaTTIsgar dIrecTed“ noT To me omassIonaTe aom'l'menT rior To TaT an Terefore n p fd Th' I I, R C h b ha a ul' ,n n: T l , compasSIonaTe appomTmenT The wrIT appellanT has noT‘l, apprised This CourT nor has pleaded anywhere even befo he learned Smgle Judge ThaT aT any poInT of Time Clause ir Rule 9 illiTer’aTe' as uoTed above was complied WITh and roVIded T woman . WGS eel V - V" q al \guled an r m av‘ v e. e r T (2 f p heeiy, d d rescribed form for movmg apphcahon for appom'rmen'r o ompassiona‘re g round . I 1“ Is also ‘nof The case ~of’ +he wrif “ The deceased was no? eligible'for bemg appomfed on compassiona‘re ground In such curoums‘rances we can feel ha‘l’ how an Illl'rem're Widow along wrrh a minor son could be ab le fo prowde food 'ro her minor son however as soon as ‘ pellan't Thaf ‘rhe Widow l lg l l l ; mdl e u uncfure In comparison 'ro earlier da a'I-ely applied for , appoin' composswnate‘' nd as he was In much need of fmancual asSIsfance a'r 'l'ha‘r J ys “serves +0 be dismissed 'nd Is hereby dismissed No ord as 1’0 cos Sd— // rashant Kumar Mishr udge d er fs v l l P a J Sd/- l I.M.Qudd‘us ud p n ; a ' i‘ c of f l l :p r l r f l ir Jge