^ HIGH COLTRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR ^?3T£T 17 ~^,^T^ 1CATT1C1 Pl^i'iSl^iL 11 'TI ! 5. . WMT PETITION (S) 4715 Abdul Gafiiir Khan S/o Late Shn Abdul Sattar Khan, aged about 2] years. R/o Naushad Silai Center tehind Sharda Bhawaa Tala para, 5ilaspur [C.G.1 State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of General • Administration Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] Water Resources Deptt. Bilaspur rc.G.i Mr. Amit Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondeats. (Passsd on 29U1 ofMarch, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a v/ni 'm the uature of certi.orari/direction for quashing the impugned order datsd 24.06,2006 (Annexure P/'l) passed by the Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Kachar, Water Resources Departmenl, Bila.spur. 2. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, while woridng in the Irrigation Department, died on 14.7.1998, in hamess. At the time ofdeath ofhis father, tfae petitioner was only 14 years ofage. 3. According to tfae learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner made several appiications for compassionate appointment before attainiBg the age of majority. No appointment could be granted to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition alongwith other 22 similarly situated persons in this Court. This Court, vide order dated 31st Jan. 2006, in W.P. No. 3886/2003' libertv to the netitiDner to file reoresentation. The same was in tum, directed to be considered in accordance with taw, 4. The respondent no. 2, having considered his representation, pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2006, passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3886/2003, rejected the representation ofthe petitioner on the ground that as per Ihe policy dated 01.05.2000, tiie application for compassionate appointment is to be made within a period ofthree years even in case ofminors, from the date ofdeath of the deeeased empioyee. The father ofthe petitioner died on 14.7.1998. The respondent no. 1 in his order dated 24.06.2006 has not mentioned as to when the appiication was made. While comin^ to the conclusion that as per circular dated 01.05., appiication ought to have been made within a period ofthree years. Learned counsel appearing for the petrtipnei^ submits tfaat his y >^ application was made immediately after the deatfa ofthe father on 20.11.1998 (Annexure P/3), Thereafter, application was made on 17.11.2000 (Annexure P/4) which, it appears, have escaped the attention ofthe respondent no. 2 while deciding the representetion On perusal ofthe pleadings and the documents appeaded thereto, it appears tfaat the respondent no, 2 has le impugned order in a casual manner without lookine into the relevant facts. The respondent no. 2 has farther not examined as to whether the policy dated 10.06.1994 would be applicable in case ofthe petitioner as the father ofthe petitioner died on 14.7.1998 or subsequent policy dated 01.05.2000 when admittedly, one application was moved nriorto 01.05.2000. 6. Tfae order impugned, passed by the Chief Engineer, respondent no. 2, is erroneous and deserves to be quashed. The respondent no. 2 is direeted to examine the matter a fresh after afFording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in light of the above observations, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. This petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aimt