^^.^Gy^: :.-.—f? mi^m&mtmGQmCT^oE'.TTiDicatai^REMyrBii.AspcR ItEaflONER :^ Mti^ /hyyM~ ^w^" '^^•):'ff.s '7^-':' ^ / A"</ •Wrtti^)PetUloaiJlNo.,.lftg3_/aOG4 •m^: Deu?Rujia^Ra:tre,,:::1:,, ' ^ :S/::o^EaEe^H@lieau^;RBmi:,Ratre, aged^ralK)BS;3|2i^ers,^,<?::.:::' .'• OocupEt1a(3Bt~jUaemployed R/o^M^g-Baiirade^h, Post-iE^del^aSS'ahsil-Salcti, Distru^iT^i^ Chamya(G.G-.) «0" ^ .._.^.& KESBSi3i&@CTS •yersus-: :'....'. ,;':,:.', 1; StatBl^eiihfl'ttisgarh, .•ThroiigJa|&e^efary,TriI)^ Maiit3?Mayat D. K. S. BUflwan, RaiBur(<S.O.]l. ^ Sta^oKetoMatMagarh, SS,,^^?;']tlaK||j^Qee|etS^^S^eati(in.; •:I>.K;iSil!®tiawjflJtt,^Raipux^C.G-,)iV^.(^. 3. •...•'Gonsctar,:.^••;,,;:, \: ::.;• ., .^'i;:^ •:.};; BiIasBiur,(0,S.).'..;,; • ' : :::-f l^ ^:lj WRIT'; PiB'NT6iri3I,0»I>ER^::..;A^l!la>E:Jti3^6jB33?i.'J ,J:Ml^a.iSHE; co»&Nt&'^^S{NKSiB^&iFi»ii{iSiB»(®lli<XF>i^ •WKit.'oisa^R^:WSii'S3asx^iiSS^^WWi^/9's^.S MATTBR;' .,"' • M/y'^-. .;1:'1 ' i;?'-N^ir;;.^i:':^:::.: ; :-'.: •::^ '"SEOIK -s^s J^i ^f I, 'gTTfl-M'l'i. fqciTBy ;s:a:«s WKSiR liwnraittrai 3TT^r xpra^ ._..^.:..?.:...^.b.,..2,o,8j'/a-o'':>^ ''WT. ' 200 •^^' v OT^'1 'Htt^ 31TOI'?RII!i" trf?? ^T^t^F? ^T^ff '? f?^ ^f'J(^y7< 'T W"!iH .?T^I 22-12-2005 Petitioner by Shri fl-U' (^U-^-^'^-^i Advocate. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer, Heard. This case relates to compassionate appointment consequent upon the death of an employee serving in the State. categoricatly stated that in this case, the death of 1 -1997 and not earlier. It is further submitted that [002 involving the same question orders have been Learned counsel for the petitionerl the employee has occurred on or after 1-| in batch of cases bearing W.P. No.1322/; passed by this Court on 20/12/2005. He jirays that similar orders may be passed in this case also. Learned counsel for the State doed of Chhattisgarh has taken a decision ^ not dispute the above fact and state that the State |to consider the cases of dependants of those In view of the submissions mac) v^ithout expressing any opinion on the m^ any gnevance still remains, the petitior( for the State. employees who died on or after 1/11/1997 strictly in accordance with the policy prevalent at that time. e by learned counsel appearing for the parties, rits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, ends of jiji^tice will be served if a direction is giv^n to the State of Chhattisgarh and the authorities concerned to consider and decide the c^se of the petitioner in accordance with the policy prevalent at the time of death of the emjsloyee concerned. If the petftioner found eligible, appointment orders will.be issued as eaj'ly as possible on or before 30 April, 2006. The petitioner is also directed to render due c<()-operation to the authorities. It is made clear that if r may avail the remedy available under the law ihpluding filing of the petition before this (};ourt. With the aforesaid observations, tfiis petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. Copy to the State counsel, who) r^sponder^s for compliance. will be obliged to communicate the order to the Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge