(^ J-\v IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION N0. 1.3 <£4- /2004 'ETITIONER Mohd Sahir, son of Late Mohd Hanif Seikh, aged about 24 years, R/o. Ambikapur, Tah. Ainbikapur, District Surguja (CG) - VERSUS RESPONDENTS CvvW <$5^ ^yy The State of Chhattisgarh, through : The \ Secretary, Department of Energy Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, through .: Its Joint Seci-etary, C.S.E.B. P^a,.;Raipur (Chhattisgarh) :.'-;f The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Ambikapur, district Surguja (CG) The Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) te^>MdeBfe »o.(5| |»eqpt!iB(dwt•to.tS^ ^ ^' /^\ K.P. Elseteefeitey- Bosrd,,- '•• TtastaBgh e9>a^ataa M.p. s.B. SlK^feil-BtowaB 'BaaaW tfrtaa^ite^.?. Mt' SllBaagfe-',lKa <~hfillir »E»»an» !rti Stia^irt-Mapg'»ew Deihl. XI-HC-78 an^T^TR-ii* ti8iT3n^ra\.^ .^S.-ss- d.-« *11*1CTI sb*1ich 3^ "l<l'yid'4, aiTlld'is, l«ii-ii«y __ wf N"o-\rS^\os '"• ^ 200 Sll^i Ma«h('i?l!31stS'iT) ?T(iraTfl1?cT3n^T ».7.2006 Shri Sanjay Kumar Agariw^t, Shri A.S. Sehorwor, Shri Vivek Verma, counsel Shri S.K. Ber-iwa!. resDondent No.6. iy the petition the gri< Late Mohd. Hanif Sheikh, who M.P.E.B. and died on 6.3.1999 in| death of his fsther he moved an tt ioard for compassionate appoii Mohd. Hanif Sheikh to earn li\ the petitioner also wrote a forwarded the same to respond^nt P-3), but the cose of the petitii petitioner has proyed that respondent-CSEB be dir-ected compassionate appointment. In the rep!y filed by the i|' as per policy dated 28.2.2004 th| or sfter 15.11.2000, ore only enti-| I h.ave heard learned counjfs It is an odmitted position ^ while workirg jn thep^^SEB, q>l<<f<']<fl-i 11<4<lT^tecA<Rl«l< ^srf^TW^r I, counsel .for the petitioner". Standina Counsel for respondent No.l to 4. for respondent No.5. Cefitrol Sover-nment Standing Counsel for ievi^nce raised by the petitioner, who is son of was working as Administr'ative Officer in Iharness due to il! hea'th, is thot after the ^pplication before the respondent-Electricity •, os there is no one in the family of Late for the family member's. The mother of to resoondent No.3 and resoondent No.3 No.4 by letter dated 7.2.2002 (Annexur-e has not been considered. Therefore, the ((olicy dated 28.2.2004 be quasheci and to consider the csse of petitioner for intilnent velihood lettfer oiter I'espondent-CSEB it has been mentioned that ^ dependents of such employees, who died on •!ed for compassionate appointment. isl for the parties ORd perused the record. ^•hat the petitioner's fother died on 6.3.1999 thereafter the petitioner applied for XI-HC-78 sn^rgiTfeiiw f^K... tWTsiT^ri—-® 731 -q|<(|c1-q, ®Tf|^|6,Rdltiy< HiHnr fl»*ncfr W3; 200 3ii^i <<atn ('icii^iq.'sT) STdW^lfScTST^T —Z-- comDassionate aDtwintment and bi 4n tHe 28.2.2004 came into existence employeea-who died in harness compossionate appointment and after bifur-cation of the Stat^ 15.11.2000. In the circumstances, I respondent-CSEB ia not entitled the petitioner for compassionat^ order dated 6th January 2004, an order jn which it has been States agreed in a meet'mg take that the division of employees of employees of MP ^overnment. matter has been considered andl dcrted 12th April 2001 so for as been decided finally to divide th^ by DWT for- allocation of posts erstMfhile Madhya Pradesh for m^ successor Electricity Board of AAf terr'itorial jurisdiction of a 5tate and similarly employees bef being sllocated to concerned employees between the two Statj ^fore his application is decided policy dated |nd as per policy the dependents of those or after .11.2000 are only entitle for objective behind said cut-off date is that of M.P., C5EB came into existence on *l'i|fcf41-f Wq?ffff fei<3 <f3f<<!< ^73Tf^IT3n^?T am of the consider'ed opinion that the \o refuse the consider'ation of applicat.'on of appointment, for the reasons that vide 6o(/ernment of India, AAinistry of Power, issued rr^entioned that representa'f'ives of both the -ji by Secretary, Power on 20th March 2003 wo(ild be in iine with policy adopted for- division In para-2, it has been mentioned that the in partial modification of provisional order ('elating to the division of empioyees it has posts and employees on the iines followed |and employees of the State &overnment of iking allocation of posts and persons to the IpEB on the principle that posts relatable to State may be cllotted to r'espective fonging to such sub Stote territorial cadres and only dividing the remaining posts and '.s, the ©overnmentof India has decided to sucdessor" Stofre L^tJBlJfc-. i'i^ ..-yi'- w f^ XI-HC-78 3^' -i|l<<lcl<l, ®Tf1t<'ls,Rldl'My ^INPTTSbHT^ ¥R; 200 3ll^<i 4a<»>(yit^lSdT) sn^TqRrf^TR; tCT 317^1'i?C9; i0( •<6'( CTaTWCTflcTsn^T -^' edted appoint a 3 members State Advisor|y person who was the Chairmon of SA^ Therefor-e, on this principle the em(( territory of newly created Chhattisj[< Chhattisgarh State Electr-icity Boaj>( DCyT for allocation of posts and erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner's father- wss terfitorisl Jur'isdiction of newly c."< the Union of India the services of t[ the respondent CSEB and as the 6.3.1999 while serving the respond^nt^ 30.1.1997 was in force, therefore, dated 20.6.2006 passed in W.P. No| considered aceording to the policy petitioner's father i.e.policy dated policy dated 28.2.2004 is not applica^l Accordingly, the petition of| dir-ection that respondent-CSEB to compassionate appointment in acco| within a period of six months. C.C. as per rules. licabl <tii<ifa4)-i tiiidT^'tectfl'<Ri'Ki< ^stf^q'sn^r Committee to be headed by the same appointed by &OT'T for Madhya Pradesh. loyees of MP^p who were workin9 i'n the larh ore to be allocated to the successor •d on the principle and line followed by amployees of the State Sovemment of (vorking at Ambikapur, which falis in the CSEB, as such, cis per ahove order" of |ie petitioner's father stands allocoted to petitioner's father- died in harness on PSEB and at that time policy dated |as has been held by this Court in order 1126/03 the petitioner's case has to be in force at the time of death of the 130.1.1997 and it 'is made cleor thot the le in the case of the present petitioner. the petitioner is disposed of with the consider the case of the petitioner' for- t'dance with the policy dssted 30.1.1997 Sd/7 -C-BHAOOO Judge