K» ^m^^ IN Tt-E HI&I^GQUI^ 0(£^Ca<SA1-tJ AT BIl^^ QllbMfTIS^tRI-t W^PE73?EIONNO^S@B^20Q5 PETTIICT'CR: lllill R6SPON&61SITS: /" ^ ^^ '..^M^ ^ s-<^%^' '^s¥^ ^eltye^^B^ Surendra Kumar Rothia, 5/o ' 'Ldte Nanhuram Rothia, '^. AgeAdbout,24'years, ,.,;';; ^,J - R^ ^jllage Banai, Tehsil: ^^ghocla, DistriGt: Kaigarh, Chhcrttisgoph VERSUS- i 1). y]j&ilTofIndia,Thr6ugh:Secretary,l &eparlTnentofPersonne|,Public , 6r'ievance and Pensiori,Third Flopr; Lffk Nayak|BhdWan, Khari Market, New:.E>elhi; ::. •; :' -'. r .'• ... 2), SfcstewfChhixti-isgorh, : i; . , Through ; Secr'etary, Depai-trnent of^| J-orest. G.K.S. &hdwan. Mahtcttlaya;; Rdipur', Chticffitisgarh. 3), Stcrt'ei'of^aclhya Pt'adesh, 1 ! ,^htnu^::||Sfecrctary,.OIe^i^ment:of|i Forest; V^llabh Bhclwdn, ttarriTaloya.i ..- • fihopal^P^,-.''.'-:.^- ,4),:' :The^|;^,. ^:::,^^5eGretapy,, .'1:; ,,,i^6enepal|j ' Adni'mi^Rat|o ,;,..;;'J ,:[iepcu~^ ^SQwer'nmentl'o'fT CW'vfsftisgw4r,fKmiurjl : ltcft'tisgorh.-'':-,-: ,'•.,;;'':: ;:':}:r"^^ :5).:;i-- ^SjwilJainal llFjarest f;Qfficer^ ^ 'Rlaigarh| ^i..:: :;'^f::^rest|E)it|is:i(irf,:R|aigai''h,1 : ': '^;T: ^^ ,',t:iistr|K:-l-:"gaigach (e.&^. i:: :^!:1^ ;i .y| Wflai-PETITie»aiaNSERs»J5CTaS ^KiaST'sGK.'EI-E. .issHSsa—:!--; ;coKi§ia"WB®iii^:iilisEll 1111III r 1111 l»i vi: —78 ~5^ •^WWi, ©Tlly'IS,fq<-11-a'j,< ..W..£.^.5....Z5.£.%/o.; sn^r'q^T (lj°if^«i<tT) sv^y w R-fi'* wn sn^v stiiii* wnw^ifCTsntB q)T<rf<?1^1 ^Wf^ ^ tS^ •(f^f^l^ ^K siRn sfi^[ ^ S.B: HON'BLE JUSTICE ^ITINKER DiWAKER 24-08-20)3: Shri B.D. Guru, counset f<\r the petitioner. Shri Kashif Shakesl, cour^el for respondent No. 1. Shri Yashwnat Singh State/respondents No. 2,4& 5. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, With the consent of the p^ Case of the petitipner, is diedon 22.4.1999 and thecomri the petitloner on the basis of th^ the cut off date which was a| 1.11.2000. Counsel for the petitiort Government has made an amen the said policy now the State G the death had taken placeafter for compassionate appointment. Counsel for the State do< "hakur, Dy' Advocate Generai for the ;ounsel for respondent No. 3. rties, the matter is heard finally. that his father jate Nanhuram Rathia had assionate appointment has been denied to policy dated 10.6.2003 according to which splied by the State Government was of sr submits that subsequentiy, the State dment in the policy on 2.2.2006 and as per ayernment is considering the cases where .11.1997 onwards; therefore he is entitled s not dispute above factua! position of the case, he submits thatlet the p^fitioner makes a fresh representation and the same would be considen accordance with existing policy. Accordingly, the writ peti petitioner to fite fresh application competent authority within four this order, the same would be d« further Deriod of four months accordance with taw. id afresh by the State Government in :ion is disposed of with a directton to the along with the copy of this order before the weeks from the date of receipt of copy of cided by the authorities concerned within a the date of its receipt strictiy in Sd/- - Pritinker Diwaker Judge