3/}. HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISSARH AT BILASPUR WR!T PETITION (Sl N0.3801 of 2007 Petitioner Ku. Champa Kuldeep, D/o Late Chandan Singh Kuldsep, aged about 24 years, R/o-Rajapara, Kanter, District, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) Respondents Versus z 4. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secrstasy, Deptt. Of Home (Poiice), D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantra!aya, Raipur (C.G.) Director Genera! of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Assistent Inspector Qensral of Poiice (Personai), Poiice Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) Superintendent of Poiice, Kanker, Distnct Kanker (C.G.) :R ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTI Singie Bench :- Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K Present^:- Shri Sanjay Faiei, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Govt. Advocate for the O R_D_E_R (Passed on this 3rd day of Ju!y, 2007) 1. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a daughter of Shri Chandan Singh Kutdeep, who died on 21.3.2002, white working as Sub inspector in Police Station, Kanker in harness. She made an application for compassionate appointment. The application of the petltioner by the order dated 10.8.2004 (Annexure P/1) was rejected on the ground that her elder sister is aiready in employmenfr He further submits that the elder sister of the petitioner have been iiving separately before the death of the deceased father. 2. This Court by the judgment and order dated 27.6.2006 passed in W.P. No. 3569/2005 (Ku. Joyti Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) heid as under:- [: ^MtS^ 2 °Now the question that the brother of the petitioner is already empioyed as Cierk in the Education Department. therefore, she is not entitied for the compassionate appointment is concsrned, in ihe rejoinder it has been mentioned that he was residing separateiy with his mother and not with his father along with petitioner, therefore, same cannot be taken to be a ground for refusing compassionate appointment to 3. In vlev/ of ciear finding ot' this Court, the respondents/authorities are directed to conduct necessary enquiry in this regard and consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Government policy and also in accordance with the judgment and order passed in the case of Ku. Joyti Agrawai (supra), within a period ofthree months from the date of rsceipt of a copy of this order. 4. The writ petition is accordingly aiiowed. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri (---