?"»'«II |SB« HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DrVISiONBENCH^ CORAM: Appellant Petitioner HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Wrrt Appeal No.130/ 2009 Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj s/o Late Shri Sampat Singh, aged about 33 years, Originally appointedon the post of regular forest guard, presently workir^ as daily wages labour on voucher payment, resident of Sargl Pal Para, Kondagaon, District Bastar (CG) li*g! t8W3»' ^•^s^y^^^ Respondents VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Forest, DKS Buitdlng, Raipur (CG) 2. Conservator of Forest, Kanker Circle, tonker(CG) 3. Collector, Bastar, District Bastar (CG) 4. The Dhrisional Forest Offlcer, Kondagaon (Production) Division, Kondagaon (CG) Writ Apoeal under Section 2 (11 ofthe Chhattisaarh (Appeal to Division BencM Act. 2006 Present: Smt Renu Kochar, leamed counsel for the appellant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, leamed Govt Advocate for the respondents. Judament (29th June, 2009) The following Judgment of the Court was psssed by Ra]eev Gupta, CJ. Smt. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2. Appellant Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj has fited this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 19-03-20C%, passed in W.P. No. 1433/2005. 3. The appellant/ petitioner in the writ petition was seelung quashing of the order dated 30-09-1994 (Annexure P/7 in e writ petition), whereby the appellant's appointment on compassionate ground on the post of untrained Forester was cancelled. 4. The appellant's father late Sampat Singh retired from the forest department after attaining the age of su| rannuation on 31-01-'i99T. After retirement, the appellant's father late Sampat Singh died on 01-03-1991. The forest department under some misconceptfon about the scheme of compassionate appointment, appointed the appellant/ petitioner vide order dated 23-07-1994 (Annexure P/3 in the writ petition). The forest department soon realized their mistake in giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner and with a view to rectify the said mistake passed order dated 30-09-1994 (Annexure P/7 in the writ pet'rtion), canceting the appettant's appointment on compassionate ground. 5. The submtssions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find favour vwth ttie writ Court resutting in dismissal of the appellant's writ petition. 6." Smt. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the respondents coukt not have cancelled the appellant's appointment even if the appellant was not entitled to compassionate appointment. -^ ^2.) f^^:^''— 7. Admittedly, the appellant's father late Sampat Singh dled after his retirement from the service. As such, the appellant/ petitioner was not at all entitled for compassionate appointment. That apart, the cancellation of appellant's appointment in the year 1994 was challenged by the appellant/ petitioner after inordinate delay of 11 years, in 2005. 8. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and In vlew of the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we do not find any inflrmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ appeal. 9. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and Is hereby dismissed summarily. ^' Sd/- ChiefJustic? Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimml