HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No 3799 of2008 Jageshwar Kumar Sam S/o Late $m Kanhzuya Lal 80m, aged about 25 years, R/a V111age & 1h Post Nagan, Tahml and Dlstrwt mlamtan (CG) VERSUS : I. The State oi Chhattlsgarh, through me Sccraary Tubal Welfare Department Marmalaya, DKS Bhawan, Ramur (C ) 2. The Comm1ssnoner, Tubal Welfate Department, Chhatusgarh Ralpur Tahsd and Dismct Ralpm “ (C G) 3. The Collector Bastar at Iagdalput (CG) 4. The Asmtant Commlssmner, mbai Welfare Depamnent, Jagdalpur Dmnct Bastar ((X‘J‘) 5, ,Inchatge Ofiicer (Finance Branch) Distnct Ofhce Jagdalpur Dxsinct Bastar (CG) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri SatishK. Agnihomi. Jw o. : . ' Present: Shn Rakes]: Anthony Advocate for the petmone Shn Y S Thakur Deputy Advocate General for t State/respondents ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18m day of July, 2mg) The petitioner 1s the dependent of Late Shn KanhaiyaLal :Som, who died in harness on 07.10.2005. The petitioner made an applieation for appointment on compassionate basis on the ground that his father died in harness. The case ofthe petitioner was considered, but appointment could not be made on account of non-availgbility of the post as is clear horn the order dated 3.9.2007 (Annexure .P/S). ‘1 l .iira F 1 r he @ U) 2. Clause 6(6) ofthe compassionate appointmem policy dated 10.06.2003 provides that the application should be made tome concerned department where the deceased employee was working. If no post is available. a certificate be issued to that etfect and the case be foxwarded to the Collector. Here, admittedly, the petitioner could nd be appointed on account-ofnon‘availability ofthe post. Be that as it may; the petitioner may approach the concealed authority to gant appointment as and when vacancy is axailable for. him In the event, vacancy is available, the petitioner may be conm’dered hn' gant of compassionatment appointment as he has been selected by the Select Committee for appointment. There is no merit in the case «watranting / interference with the decision ofthe respondent authorities. i 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the above direca‘ons. No order asto costs. ‘ Sd/ i Satish K. A-gnihotri l _ ' Judge