^^ .•-^^'fep<?J^''/)/?.\^t< ,^^- c^^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILSPUR Writ petition fS1No-yb^'/2011 PETITIONER : Kishan Kumar Varma Age-32years, S/o Late Kaluram Varma R/o Vill - Pandarbhatta, P.0.- Kura, Tah 85 Distt - Raipur. Versus RESPONDENTS: (1) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary ^ ^^^ ^... _.._.„,,1/^^ ^.,/.n^^^ WaterResources Department D.K.S. Bhawan; Raipur. 2] Executive Engineer/ Water Resources Department Division No - 1, Raipur (CG WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES ^26 QP. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) W.P(S).No. 3899 of 2011 Petitloner Kishan Kumar Varma VERSUS Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and another Prssent: Shri Ashok Vaishnav, counse! for the petjtioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, PL forthe State. ORDER (2S.07.2011) The grievance of the petitioner is that his father Kalu Ram Verma was working as gangman in the Water Resources Department and he died on 29.11.2008 but till date, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been finalized at the ends of respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 02.05.2009, vide annexure P-4, the Executive Engineer has already made correspondence with the Sub Divisional Offlcer in the case of the petitioner but till date, nothing has been done. He further submits that the purpose of filing of this petition would be served if at this stage, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the caseof the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order. 3. Learned State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a fresh representation to the respondents and in turn, the representation would be decided in accordance with law. 4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to fite a fresh representation within 3 weeks and the competent authority shatl decide the same in accordance with lawwithin 5 months. ?,-'•,'-'.;:.^^ '] ^•^^ i -5- Priya 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressedany opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation in accordance with law after considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge