C^vo'l-r' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRJT_PETmQN N0. t<Lt-&& / 2006 PETITIONER ,../-:0$^ >^y^ v)^s^..--""" /-";.^:;?^.!»-" :Lekhram Verma S/o Late Pyarelal Verma Aged about 31 years, R/o- village- Nayakarela, P.0- Dhara P.S- Dongargarh, Dist- Rajnandgoan (C.G) ^•;^C^Ay- ^•"^,'oJ? ^•'^"'y' 'y-^^-"' '^" RE.SPONDENTS Versus ,'" 1. -cofft 2. ^^^'Go^ State of ChhattisgarU Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G), Engineer in Chief PWD, Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) Superintendent Engineer PWD, Durg Mandal Dist- Durg Sub-Divisional Officer PWD (B&R), Sub-Division Office, Dongargarh (C.G) iS-sff1^ H fSiSS&' • We8iS ^^i^i ^^^"'?^? SSW^Si 1^^ ^MS^S ^SSIi — ai ^%B^' ^s^ BB8'i ^iiSK BIUSI — St8S VSK WRIT_PEjmQM UNDER ARTICLE 22,6/227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQRISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION TQ DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. • B BS BS • B i^e RE ^r"w^ Sni"^SS^^Sf^^^ssslssffl'-i XI-HC-78 *n*l(^l Sb+llch 3 T •^1'4M'4, ®Tfi'H'16,Ridl+iy .^J;p>:.'^.f:€>.^'.,W^ 200^ 3ii^i ^acn (yt(^q^) sn^r qir R^i+ c^TT^TT^Tsh^l^i WtiTWBfl^r sn^r +i'sild41-f iiifiTffteiAtFii^K ^srf^iiTsn^r ^- 21-8-2006 coufasel iinfter pr^yed df tie accoariaacel with Mr. H.S. AIiluwaUa, Mr. Satish Gupte, respondents, on advance copy^ Heard both the coimseLI By this writ petition oflndia, the petitioaer has consider the appUcation appointment on suitable post.| Leamed counsel for fh^ his piayer to the extent that fhe appUcation, in for passing any order for Thc case of the woildng as pennanent Sub Divisioai; Dongargarh. on 15-6-2002 whflc in applicadon for compassionate) 7-11-2002, same is pcndii^ but the respondents are aot In the circumstaaccs,| submits that fhe respondcnts] of the petitioner and pass which leamed counsel for the Having heard leamed to the facts and for fhe petitioner. D^puty Govt. Advocate for thc State/ Article 226/227 offhe Constftution fhat the respoudents be directed to thc petitioaer for compassioiiate petitiD(ier Gaagn^aa setnce petitioner subiaits fhat he is liniiting respoudents be directed to consider the scheme and he is not prayiiig coini(assionate appointtnent by the Court. is fhat the petitioncr's father was in the F'ublic Works Department at Flafher of the petitioner died ia hamess and the petttfoiier movcd an appoiatment ia place of his fathcr on lconsideration befcwe fhe respondents, di^cidiag the appticatioa. leamed coiuisel for the petitk)33er |be directed to coasider fhe appHcation in accordaace with the scheine to ptate/respondents has no objection. for the partics aod having regard of the case, respondent No.2 is difcc: ortler cdunscl circumstenlccs P.T.O. ;s^;~^ XI-HC-78 • KS *TTR^IT»<-K9> 3ST;?fraRpr, »Tflti'is,Ricii+iy .^..K..^.^.^ ;R7 4 3TT^?TT3;ER (iptg^W) SfT^T^iTR-fi'b Vff sm^S sKIffSK t- Soma ^ ^ 'o WBTW^rfStTSn^T •2^i ppli^ation directed to consider the appU^ation on the said appUcation of ft(< scheme, wifhia a period of thi^e copy offhis order, Witti the direction Consequcntly, I.A.No.80(|l9/20C» Parties are entifled for celrdfied aforesyd <hll['1'ifl-l Wlcit^'tec^'<Rli-<il< ^sri^nsn^T of the petitioncr and pass order petitioner, in accordaace wdth tfae months fiiom the date of receipt of a , the petition staads disposed of. also stands disposed of copy offhis order. L.C.Bhadoo Judge P.T.O. ~/ /•/