HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR §VRIT PETITION (S) No. 2319 01‘2008 PETITIONER : Raj Kumar Yadav Sio Late Shri Ram Lai, aged about 26 years, R10. Baloda Bazar, District — Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Public Works DepartmenL D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, District -— Raipur (C.G.) 2. Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle No. — 2, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Executive Engineer, ?ub1ie Works Department, Baloda Bazar Division, District ‘ Raipur (C.G.) 4. Sub Divisional OEicer, Public Works Department, Sub Division Baloda Bazar: District — Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. I’resent: Sini Sunii Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State Irespondents. ORAL ORR DE (Passed on "—ra’—‘—' 23 day of April, . 2008) 1. The father ofthe petitioner namely Late Shri Ram Lal, working as permanent gangnan. died on 18.07.2007 in harness. The petitioner, being the deyendant legal heir made an appiication on 06.08.2007 (Annexure P/3) for comyassionate appointment. 2. According to the learned counsel, the respondent authorities have not taken any step and passed any order on the aoplication/letter dated 06.08.2007. It is Iinther contended that as per the State policy, the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate basis. .» \x / £é The pmpose of grant of compassionate appoimment is to provide immediate succor and relief to the dependants of the deceaséd. The respondents, by not iaking any action on the application/letter ofthe petitioner, have defeated {he purpose of compassionate appointment. Thus, it requires that the said apolication/ietter be considered in accordance with law exyeditiously, as early as possible. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider his application/letter in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders on its own merit within a period of two months as per the State policy no. F—7— 4/2002/1—3 dated 10““ June, 2903.. The petition is disposed of with above directions. No order as to costs. f).I’ri—f ‘3 SdJ— . Ii Satish K. Agnihotri \1 ._ I I _‘udge i : m2 v.