r » IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P.fS) N0. 2-3>G^ /2011(S.B.) [ahendra Singh, S/o Late Madan Singh, aged about 25 years, R/o Village- Saraipali, Police Station & Tahsil Kota, Distt. -Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS \\.<'--~t-' \v'' ,N^y ^e^y' .^ 4/y^ ..A" <-''.-" •^ aq"'^r. v^y 1: State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. RaipurfC.G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block 2. 3. , Kota, Distt.-Bilaspur (C.G.) l^. C-OL^CToff- Bit-HS.PUfLC^-i^-') WRIT PETITION UNDER~ARTlCLE-226'OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •ii "ai 3^ c.-^/ '^/^' S«t=!SSSg 'v^/ SSS^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WR1T PETITION (S) No. 2305 of2011 Mahendra Singh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of'Clihattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETlTION WffiER .^tRTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLTTION OF INDIA Present; Shri Om P. Yadav, Advocate tor fhe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govenimeat Advocate forthe State/rsspondents. s"cs.^/4 f>y. fl/?n(^ rid'^7 ^-f^.,-T-"'i?- /?./ ^jrQ-sse-o ou UA ' os-y 01 ivisy, ^,1 1. Leamed eounsel appeariiig fbr tlie petitioner submits that the fafher of the petitiotier Late Sliri Madan Smgh, while working as Assistant Teaeher, died in hamess on 21.04.1993. The petitioner, beiag the dependent member and son of the deceased employee, made an application for compassionate appoiiitment on 19.06.2008. Thus. the State Govermnent mav be directed to eonsider his case and pass appropriate order in accordaiice with law. 2. On the other hand, Shri Gupta, leamed counsel appearmg for the State/respoiidents submits that the State Govemment has taken a policy decision vide circuiar dated 02.02.2006 fhat the employee who had died prior to 01.01.1997, will not be considered for compassionate appointment. Thus, tlie case ofllie petitioner camiot be considered bv the respondent authorities. 3. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings aiid documeiits appended tfaereto. 3/ 4. The State of Chliattissarh came mto existence on 01.11.2000. Thereatter, by circular dated 02.02.2006, it was decided by fhe State Govenmient that a person who had died on or after 01.11.1997 may be considered for appointinent on compassionate basis. In the instant case, the employee died on 21.04.1993 before the cut otT date. Thus, the application of tlie petitioner is not in consonance with tlie policy ofthe State Govemment. 5. It is indisputable tliat the father of tlie petitioner died on 21.04.1993. It is clearly provided in the policy dated 02.02.2006 that only the dependents ofthose deceased employee who had died between 01.11.1997 to 31,10.2000 can be considered. if'thev make au application within a period of tliree years. Iti tlie instant case, the petitioaer fails on two grounds, firstly, the employee died before 01.11.1997 and secondly, the application for grant of compassionate appointment was inade ven' belatedly. 6. Even othenvise, after the death ofthe employee, the petitioner has survived from 1993 till date without anv assistance iii the nature of compassionate appointment. Thus, the same cannot be granted at fhis stage as the purpose of compassionate appointaient is to provide iimnediate relief and succor to the dependents of the deceased employee on account ofhis sudden demise. 7. Ia light of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove- tlie writ petition is bereft ofmerit and is accordingly disniissed. Sd/- ish K. Agnihotri Judge Armt ll;