0f; I’a’a L (Q r/ IN THE ON ‘ BLE HigH COURT OE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUE WRIT PETI!ION (§) NO. §7 23 l 2007 PETITgONER: Praveer Chandra Khelwar, S/o Late Shri Markandeya Satnami, Aged about 27 years, R/o Danteshwari Ward No. 20, Old Sarab Bhatti Road, Jagdalpdr, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh / VERSUS RESPONDENTS- 1. State of Chhattisgarh é‘t Through the Secretary, Pubiic Works Department, Ministry, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) (V 2. The Collector, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) x 3. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4.,The Executive Engineer, n Public Works Department, North Bastar Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). ’ ,/ WRIT EETITION QNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF J INDIA . q¢ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA’SPUR {Ham Mr. Justice Pritinket Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5733 of 2007 Praveer Chandra Khelwar PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Alok Dewangan counsel for the petitioner Shn VVSMoorthy, Dy AG With Shn Am Singh PL for the State/respondents WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE _ COESTITUHON OF INQIA O R D E R (30.09201 0) ChaHenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Deputy Conector on behatf of the Collector, Bastar rejecting the application of the mother of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. The application of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that his father died on 1.4.2004 and'the limitation of three years for grant of compassionate appointment has already expired on 1.4.2007 and therefore the compassionate appointment cannot be given to him. 2. Case of the petitioner is that on 1.4.2004 his father late Markandeya Satnami died in hamess when he was working as Assistant Grade-ll in the Public Works Department On 15 6 2004 vide Annexure P-3 an application was made by Rajm Khelwar the Widow of o the deceased seeking compassionate appomtment In favour of her son ie the petitioner Praveer Chandra Khelwar After recelvmg the said application on 10 12 2004 Vlde Annexure P-4 the Executive Engineer l of the Public Works Department asked the petitioner as to whether he is willing to accept the compassionate appointment against Class—iv ‘ post On 18 122004 Vide Annexure P-5 the petitioner gave his consent for the same and his case was duly forwarded by the i Executive Engineer to the Superintendent Engineer on 20.12.2004 Vide @ _a— Annexure P-6. From the documents it appeats that though the case of the petitioner was forwarded to the higher authority but the said authority kept sitting tight over the matter tiii 26.2.2007. Again on 262.2007 vide Annexure P-8 the petitioner was asked to give his consent afresh for the post of Peon (Class-iv employee) and the petitioner gave his consent (Annexure P-9) on the same day to be appointed as Peon and had also made a request that he be given the said appointment immediately. The record further reflects that on 4.6.2007 vide Annexure P-10 the Chief Engineer wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer asking him about the progress in the case of the petitioner in respect of the compassionate appointment and if the petitioner is so willing, obtain his consent for the post of Siksha Karmi and the Executive Engineer was further asked to ensure the appointment of the petitioner as Siksha Karmi. After receiving the above letter on 8.6.2007 (Annexure P-11) the Executive Engineer again asked the petitioner to give his willingness to be appointed as Siksha Karmi on compassionate ground and the same was given by the petitioner on 16.7.2007 vide Annexure P-1 2. On 30.7.2007 vide Annexure P-13 the Executive Engineer wrote a letter to the Collector while forwarding the case of the petitioner that he should be appointed as Siksha Karmi. It appears that pursuant to this letter the order impugned dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure P-1) has been issued by the Deputy Collector holding that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as his case has been forwarded after lapse of three years of period. 3. Contention of Shri Alok Dewangan, counsei for the petitioner is that in the present case there is‘no delay on the part of the petitioner and from the very beginning he and his mother were pursuing the case of the petitioner but the order of the compassionate appointment has not been passed. He submits that the order impugned is patentty illegal, based on incorrect fact and liable to be quashed. ’ @. 4. Suppomng the impugned order it has been argued by Shri Moorthy, counsel for the respondents that the order is in accordance with the policy and the same cannot be interfered with. 5. From the facts and documents of the case it is apparent that the father of the petitioner died on 1.4.2004 and on 15.6.2004 the first application was moved by the mother of the petitioner and wife of the deceased seeking compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner. On 10.12.2004 the petitioner was asked to give his consent for his appointment against class-IV post and after receiving the same his case was fowvarded by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer on 20.12.2004. It is unfortunate that the authority kept sitting tight over the matter tilt 26.2.2007 and thereafter a fresh consent vide Annexure P-8 was asked from the petitioner which was again given very promptiy by him on 26.2.2007. In stead of giving him compassionate appointment, on 8.6.2007 the petitioner was asked one more time to give his consent as to whether he would like to be appointed as Siksha Karmi. On 16.7.2007 the petitioner again gave his consent to be appointed as Sikshi Karmi but in stead of appointing him on the said post the order impugned has been passed. 6. In view of the above facts it is apparent that the order impugned has been passed by the Deputy Collector on behalf of the Collector without verifying the correct factual position. The said order is unsustainabie in the eye of law and accordingly the same is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pritinker Diwaker Judge ‘ a sew “r Sdie