/^4) rf HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petit.^ No. 1308 of 2002 Petitioner: MahendraYadav, S/o Late Shri U. S. Yadav, aged about 30 years, R/o Arvind Marg, Kirtikuiij, Sarkaada, Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus Respondents; 1. State of CMiattisgarh, Thiough- Secretaiy. Public Works Department, D.K. Bhawan, Ralpur. CpUector, Bilaepur. CituetBngmeerlBastj t'ufcjic W?n»lain Dapnrtnieait, BilaSpUT. 4. ExecuUve Bngtneer, FUBUC Works Department, BUaspur. 5. Superintending Eiigiaeer, PubUc Works Department, (Electrical Division), Raipur. 6. Commissioner, Baaspur. 7. State of Madhya Pradesh through fhe Secretary, PubUc Works Department, Bhopal (M.P.). 8. Unionoflndia, Throughfhe Secietaxy, Department/ Miaistiy of the Huinan Resources & Development, New DeUu. Sin^e Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnlhotri. Shri Manoj Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 to 6. None for the respoadents No. 7 and 8. ORAL ORDER (31" Januaiy, 2006) The foUowine order ofthe Courtwas passed by Satish K. Agniliotrl, J, 1. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits fhat father (Late U. S. Yadav) of fhe petitioner died oa l.5.1998 in hamess while workmg as Assistant Grade-II in Public Works Department of fhe State Govenmient. The petitioner beiag son aud dependant Eled ^1_<- . fss'ass 9 :VS :IJ»2 f> J an. application for considering his case fbr compassionate appointiueut ou 2&7,>J.1998 (Annexure P/2) but fhe case of the petitioner has yet not been considered. 2. Leamed couasel for the petitioner submits fhat several petitions of identical nature fbr appointment on compassionate basis were considered by this Court and fhey have been decided by order dated 28th December, 2005 whereia this Coiu-t passed the follcwing order:- "5. So far as the present cases are concemed, leamed Dy. Advocate Generals inade a stateinent that the Slate of Chhattisgarh has taken a decision to consider fhe cases three years prior to reorganization i.e. those State einployees whose death occurred on or after l.11.1997 and strictty in accordance with the policy prevalent at fhe tune ofdeafh ofan employee. This stateiuent is recorded. 6. Leamed counsel appeariiig for the respective petitioners in the bunch ofcases categoricaUy stated that ia each aad eveiy case the deafh ofthe einployee has occurred on or after 1.11.1997 and not earUer. Leamed counsel further subnutted that their cases inay be considered aad decision may bc taken at the earliest. They also submitted that the petitioners wiU render due cooperation to the authorities. This stateinent is also necorded. 7. Leamed counsel for the State subinit that in eveiy petition three sets have been filed by the petitioneis; in. soiae cases extra sets are reqiured by thein which inay be allowed to be taken by them from the Court recori. The State counsel inay take the extra sets Iroin the office wherever fhey require. They also pray for three inoafhs dme to decide the cases ofthe petitioners. 8. In view of the submissions made by leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties, without expressing aay opimon on the inerits of the case, in the opinion of this Court ends ofjustice wiU be served ifa direction is given to fhe State 3^" <J-/ and the authorities concemed to consider and decide fhe cases of the petitioneis' dependents of fhe einployces who died on 1.11.1997 aad thereafter in accordance with the policy which was in farce at fhe tiiae of death of fhe employee. Each and eveiy iadividiial case wiU be decided and if fhe persoa found eligible, appointment orders wifl be issued as earty as possible on or before 30th April, 2006. The pettdoners are also directed to render due cooperation to fhe aufhorities. It is made clear fhat if aay grievance still reinains, thc petitioners niay avail the reinedy available under the law uicludiag filiag of the petition beforc ttus Court. 9. Subject to fhe aforesaid directions aad obsereations, aU these petitioas stand disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. 10. Consequenfty, peading appUcations, if any, also stand disposed of, in soinc cases applications seekuig fonnal amendinents regarding correction of cause tifle etc. have been filed. They are aUowed. The amendinent be iacorporated and the corrections ifaay be made." 3. The facts of the present case are adinittedly squarely covered by the judgment aad order dated 20.12.2005 passed by this Court m W.P.No. 731/2004 (Dumendra Singh Pisda Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers) and other connected inatters. 4. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is accordingly atlowed ia tenns of fhe order passed ia W.P.No. 731/2004. No order as to costs. Certified copy, as per Riiles. Sdf- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur