:s--":: AMENDBI^^ETmON IN THE HIGH COURT_0£CHHATnSGATHAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0, 4788 01^2004 PETITIONERS ^a ^ :*; ~o|—[& ^__^ »iHedon .—.t.-:-—•—-—•"—• toy«hri...^:^M(--!<s:^--- .Advocttte .wA.s.fJ) w {?. .y RESPONDENTS 1. Dilkunwar, W/o Late Gobri, Aged aboUt 48 years, Caste- Dhobi, Occupation-Housewife, R/o Village Dugga, Bhatgaon, TaMsil Surajpur^ District Surguja (C.G.) ~ 2. Shivlal/S/o Late Shyamtal,Aged about 30 years, • Caste-Dhobi, Occupation-Cultivator, R/o^ Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur,District Koriya (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Sub Personnel Manager, S.E.C.L. BhatgaQnArea,TahsilSurajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2. Sub Area Manager, S.E.C.L, Bhatgaon Area, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3. Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L.; VishramFiur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 4. South EastemCoal FieldsLtd. Through^ CRarrman-cum- Mariaging Director, S.E.C.L.i, Heaa Office- Seepat T^aod, Basant Vihar, Bilaspur(C,G.) i i> WRITPETJTION UNDERARTICLE226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No. 4788 of2004 : Dilkunwar & another. VERSUS E' " RESPONDENTS : Sub Personnel Manager & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF DSTDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aauhotri, J. Present: Shri Ashok K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for tfae respondents. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 30U day of March, 2010) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard fmally. 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner No. 2 for grant of compassionate appomtment. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband ofthe petitioner No. 1, and father-in-law ofthe petitioner No. 2, namely Gobri, died while working as General Labour, Category-1, on 11.04.1996. Employment on eompassionate basis could not be given to the petitioner No. 1 on account ofthe fact that she was 48 years old in the year 2004. Thus, the petitioner No. 2, who resided with the petitioner No. 1 and her husband Gobri, before the death ofthe deceased employee, being the dependent, is entitled to grant of appointment on compassionate basis under the provisions ofclause 9.3.3 ofthe memorandum ofagreement dated 19th January, 1996 (Annexure P/10). Shri ShuKla farther submits ,f-,< 5. 6. that the petitioner No. 1 is ready and willing to forego the monetary benefits granted to her after the dealfa of her husband, in case appointment on compassionate basis is granted to the petitioner No. 2. Shri Koshy, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner No. 1 has given an affidavit (Annexure R/2) that she does not want employment bwt m lieu of that, she may be granted monetary eompensation. Accordingly, the monetary compensation was paid to her. Thus, the case oftfae petitioner No. 2 fbr grant ofconipassionate appointment cannot be considered. Be that as it may, it appears that fhe petitioner No. 1, the widow, is willing to forego the monetary compensation ganted to her after the death ofher husband, who died m hamess. Without expressing any opinion on merits ofthe case, the respondent authorities may examine the facts as stated by the petitioners and consider the case of the petitioner No. 2 under the provisions of clause 9.3.3. and 9.5 ofthe memorandum of agreement dated 19 January, 1996 (Annexure P/10) and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, M(W)P. No. 5069/2004 is also disposed of. s.mit A.mi' Sd/- Satisb^.Agnihotri Judge