,;1^ MlP^ Nr:!i3^ g^;-^ fflGH CQTIRT QF CHHATTISGAfiH AT BILASPUR ^YntPetitiuBNp,8Spf2003 Damodar Prasad Paikra, Age abouf 36 yeare, son of Sliri Runiya Sai (Kawar) Paikra, resident of village Bichhitola, Post Pathalgaon, District Raigarh (CG) working as Assistant Teacher, at Middle Schooi, Gersa Distt. Raigarh I.T.RSTTS RESFO?'JDE.NTS : 1. Sta-te ofChhatt'searhtlw-oughthe Secrefarv. Denartmentof Education Fuolic Instntcuons, Govt. 01 Gihattisgarh, Mantra'ava. Raiorr CO. 2. Tiie Director of Fublic Instruction Govt. of CSihattisgarh, Mantralaya, Raipur C.G. 3. The Distriet Education Officer, Raigarh District Raigarh (%rRrr pETmoN i.nsiDER ASTICLE 226/22? OF THE CONSTmiTTON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Aanib.otri, J-t • Pt-esent : Smt. HamidaSiddique, Advocateforthepetitioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advucate for the State. >ER (Passed on 28'" ufMarcli, 20G8) 1. With the consent ofthe partics^ thc 'Tt'?-tt€Tis taken. vp f^r he-ifix'sg finally. 2- Tlie o^titioner w?-s aT?ooiiit^d! a? A^si^taiit T€fcachervide ord^r 6.9ted 13.03.95 in accor<l'3iice v^ith the circulaf d-a-t€td 10.06.94 t/See 1^.06-94^ ^Aiiiiexiire pyi\ Aecordingly the petitioiier who happcn^ to be the brother of soxi-in-law ofthe widow ofthe deeeased employee, namely, Shri Nand Ram Paikra, was given compassioiiate appomtment. Siibseq'.'eatly, vide order dated 28.07.98 (Amiexure P/2), the appointiiieiit of the pet'tioiier was cancelied in view of the circu!ar dated 10.09.95. Tbe cu'cular dated 10.09.95 prdvided that the appoiiitment of other relations nantely, grand daiighte'r, son-in-law, brother-hi-law-, brother^ sister ne^hc'w. ni<?ce. daiisfhter-hi-l^w.. sister-iii-la^ e:tc. was not in accordance ^''ith !aw. Tlierefbre, appoiiitHi<?nt i'n^d^ ^f^c'r 03.01.95 on the coiiipassionate basis should be declaredi. as illc'^1 ^n'd bc- accordiii^v c^nceHe^. / V. . ^.,yaa © » 3. Tlie circylar dated 10.09.95 declaring all th^ appolntiT'ents siot in accordance with 'aw has heen issued without any basis, wit!"> retrospective efiect. The circu'ar, m view ofthe settled position of law, cannot take away the righfs ofthe petitioner, which has accmed on account ofhis appointment in accordance with the cireuiar dated 10.06.94 4. Leamed counse} appearing for the petitioner as wel! as for the Stafe/respondents jointly submit that the question of law invoived ia the present 'wit petition are the same as to that ofm W.P.CS'i No. 2632/2.005 ^Jaideen Vavad Vs. State of ^Iadhv^ Pracjesh ^ other^^. which was allowed vide order dated 02.05.07. Thiis^ the c^se ofth? petltioner is squarely covcred by the jij.dgii^ent and order passed in the ni^tt€TofJaideep Yavad (Supra). 5. In view ofthe above-stated submissions made by leamed counsel for the parties, tne vmt petition is al!owed in the same terms, subject to verificatiou ofthe facts. No order asto costs. Sd,/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge SSIBI