^(^l^ '•Eh WritPetitiQn (S) No. 2Str of 2008 Mithilesh Kumar Nag, S/o. Late Shri K.L. Nag, aged about 20 years, R/o. , Village ' Bacirebhata, Post Tahsii & Dlstrict Kanker' Versus . . ' ! . • . . Respondents ,1) State of ChhattiaQarh through Secretary, panchayat & Social Welfa're Dep^brient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(CG:). 2) Deputy DireGtor, Panohayat & Social Welfare Department, Jagdaipur, District Bsstsr (CG) (Writ Pet'tion under ArticSe 226 ofthe Constitutionof India.)' SB: Hon'bteMr. Salish K.Agnihotri, J. Stiri Rahui Jha, .counsel for thepetittoner; ; • . ; Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt., Advocate for the State.' ,th on 8"' dav 6f With consent of iearned counsei appearing for the parties, th& matter. is heard finally. 2) Leamea.counsel appearing forthe peiitioners submits that ihe father of.the petitioner Shri K.L. Nag, whiie working as Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Weifare Department, died in harness on 10-2-2004. The petitioner, being dependent on the income ofthe petitioner, applied immediately 6n 7-8-2004 for consideratioh of his case for .grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioneF received: a communicated dated 27-2-2008 (Annexure P/5) after a period of 3 14 years toi'he effect that three years penod have aireaoy been over, therefore, his case could nbt:be consldered and secondly since there is no avaiiability of posi, appointmert oannat^be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsei further submits that tbe finding of tpree years have aiready been over, is contrary. to record as the petitioner had appiied immediateiy for corisideration ot' his 'case ahd pendency before the authorities cahnQt 2-- be a ground for rejection of the appiication; Tnereafter, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents-authority on 31-5-2006 (Annexure P/3) for considering his case on any other appropriate post. ^<; Rsju 3) Learned eounsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that representation a'ated 31-5-20fl6 (Annexure P/3) shai! be oonsidered, in accofdance witn law. .<< 4) I n view of the foregoing, the respondents-authority are directed to conssder tiie representation dated 31-5-2006 (Annexure P./3) fiied bythe petitioner, in acoordance with taw on its own merit vi/ithin a period of eight weeks from the date of reoeipt of a oopyofthisorder. , [| Sd/- Sarish K. Agnihotri Judge