CliLQo // maEaE QENéiéi ® IN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISEARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (5) No. §513 /2010 PETITIONER " ' : /Mahendm Kadam ‘ ’ S/o. VLm‘e Shri Waman .Rao Kddam, ’ aged 35 year‘s, R/o. Jagr‘ifi Chduck, Near Kalyan Coaching, Dish‘: Raipur‘ (C.G.) ,x VERSUS 1'. Union Of India Through Chief Commissioner Income ‘lax Depam‘men’r Ayokar" / Bhavan Bhopal (MP) 2‘ STo‘re Chief Commissioner of. Income Tax, Cen’rral Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur‘ (6.6.) RPONDENTS ES RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE 2 CONsTITUTION OF INDIA W HIGH COURT OF CHHATT}SGARH : BILA$PUR WRIT PET1T§ON (S) M15319 OF 2010 Mahendra Kadam Versus RESPGNDENTS Union of India & Another (Writ Petition under ArticXe 2261227 of the Constitution 9f india} Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satis‘h K. Agni'notri. J. Present :- $hr§ Beversh§ Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. e. w r PETlTiONER » ‘ nwewfvrthe {espondenta W ‘ , {Passed on cRaER this 5“ day (0mg of Apr“, 201 1) 1. Heard iearned counsel for the parties. 2. Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated .27-1 1-20091’G1 -1 2-2009 (Annexure PM), whefeby the appiicaticn‘ of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, was rejected 1.; on the ground that the appiication was tiied beyond three years period, which is required under the poiicy of compassionate appointment. 3. The facts! in nutsheii, as projected by the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner nameiy; Wamen Rao Kadam white working as Notice Server in the income Tax Joint Commissioner {)ffice, Circie—3, Raipur, died on 2302/2004 in harness, Thereafter. the petitioner moved an application on 22i03i2004 (Annexure PM) within a period of one month to consider him for appointment on compassionate basis. However, application oi the petitioner was - rejected by the Departmental Screening Committee (for short “the Committee? held on 181020007 on the ground that no communication was received from the office of the CCIT, Raipur between 22i0312004 and, 08/05/2007. 4. Shri Thakur, teamed Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the 2377 Committee, which was communicated to the petitioner by the , E 2 h) impugned order itself indicates that there was an appiication before the Commitkee thereon, The Committee couid not have taken a decision without examining the facts aste whether the application was flied in time 0f not. There is ‘no ether appiication on which the impugned order was passed. Thus, the repiy of the respondent is vague and ambiguous. if there is no appiication and the appiication was made to ihe appropriate authoriiy i.e. Chief income Tax Commissioner, Shopai on 22i03/200? (Annexure Pl1) within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased empioyee, the rejection on the ground that the application was fiied beyond three years period was perverse. On what basis this conclusion has been made. when no other applioation has been med by the petitioner, is not ciear. According to the petitioner. the respondents have the application dated 22/03/2004 before it, on which the above-stated decision was taken. Thus, the petitioner has successfully established that the appiication of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was made within the prescribed period by the petitioner, on 22’032‘2004 (Annexure Pl’i) when his father died on 23/022‘2004 in harness. Thus, the impugned order dated 27-1 1-2009/01 42-2009 (Annexure PM) is vitiated and accordingiy quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner. in ‘accordance with the policy and on its own merits treating application of the petitioner within time and pass appropriate order as early as possible preferabiy within a period of six Weeks. Accordingiy, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. f i sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge run we