6% \M/f IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No...X§.)/..\? ......... 201 1 PETTIONER / Krishna Kishore Patel S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Patel Aged about 19 years,(18 years \\ ‘ bye. ’\ \ lOmonths) Post Temar District , w §” ‘1 " 1 Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) V VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through ~ the Secretary Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) / 2. District Education Officer Janjgir 30m{¢w v' CRnW-‘i MA _ Champa District Raipur (CG) 3. Block Education Officer Sakti District Janjgir Champa (C.G) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE UIA-226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUSIDIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. v W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPI JR WRIT PETITION (S) Nol 1549 of 2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Goverriment Advocate. for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL ' (Passed on 22“ day of March, 201 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of theorder dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure P/l) and 03.12.2010 (Annexure P/2) and further, to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, while working as Upper Division Teacher in the Education Department, died in harness on 19.10.2008. Since at that point of time, the petitioner was minor, her mother made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 17.1 1.2008 (Annexure P/4) stating that when the petitioner attains the age of majority, he may be given appointment. The said application was forwarded by the. respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 on 28.12.2008 (Annexure P/3). However, no order was passed on the application dated 17.11.208. Later on, when the petitioner became major, he also moved an application on 03.05.2010 (Annexure P/6) for grant of Present: PETITIONER Krishna Kishore Patel. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. {>5 compassionate appointment which was duly forwarded by the respondent No. 3 on the same date. The said application was rejected by the respondent No. 2 on 01.07.2010 on the ground that the application was not filed within the stipulated period of six months of the date of death of the deceased employee. However, no decision has been taken till date on the application filed on 17.1 1.2008 by the mother of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Shri Satish Gupta, learned Govemment Adyocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner has moved an application for grant of compassionate V appointment after attaining the age of majority on 03.05.2010. In the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that as per the amended clause 3 of the policy for compassionate appointment, the application ought to have been made within a period of six months of the death of the deceased government employee. But in the instant case, the petitioner has made application after a period of one year, seven months and 14 days. Thus, the application was rightly rejected. However, Shri Gupta fairly submits that no order‘ has been passed on the application dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P4/) filed by the mother of the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. On perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the subsequent application filed by the petitioner has been considered, but there is no averment in the impugned orders dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure P/l) and 03.12.2010 (Armexure P/2) asto whether or not, the application tiled by the mother of the petitioner for grant of '\. 9 é compassionate appointment to the petitioner after he attains the age of majority, was considered. However, in View of the circular dated 02.02.2006, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which is prevalent as on date, the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay. The whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the ultimately demise of its sold earning members (See: Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singhl ). In view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the application dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P/4) filed by the mother of the petitioner, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ln the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto edsts. SATISH K. ANGNH‘IORI Judge Sd/— 1 (1997) 8 SCC 85