^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. IS^^ /2006 Bsii KlSj'w PETITIONER RESPONDENTS f ^v-.^•^y" Smt. Mantori W/o Late Shri Purushottam aged about 39 years R/o Parsada Bade, Patwari Halka No. 11, Tahsil Sarangarh DistrictRaigarh(C.G.) VERSUS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through: Its Secretary, PublicWorks Department (P.W.D.) D.K.S. Building, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Raigarh Division, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer [S.D.O.] Public Works Department, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227_QUHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 ST^I^T (<•<!+, 3D^I StiHT^ y^ -3"^';:qra?PI, ^^y'l<o, 'fSi^iKTy: w^. /?>^ |o^ <iiK?fr **nq» sn^i TE(nw<rf®i Saranaterh Shri Sameer Behar, counseM Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State Qf C Appiication for urgent hearinc Heard. : The' petitioner has fited this Constitution of jndla praying for appointment. . The petitioner's hysband na: post of Gangman (Permanent Lab Pubjic Works Department, .Sarang ser»'ice. Death Certificate is Anne? husba.nd, the petitioner appiied for Sub Divisional Officer as 'per dependants -6{ other persons, Vfho compassionate. appointments in ti- petitioner has. not been given em direction to the resi petitionsr, . • Learned State counset subnl early as possible a.nd if she is entiti^ witi be given. regarding compassienate appointm chi^^'i 'pra^f "4 'fe^ <r^i<^i< ^?3lf5iPT3iI^( brthe oetitioner. ocate General snd Shri Satish Gupia, .hhattisaarh. ' • isaiiov/ed. . ,. . Artide. 226/227 of the a dlrection to give compassipnate * T>e!y Purushottam was working .qn the ^yr) under the Sub Divisional Officei-, l. He died on 2-3-2001 during his lure P-3. On account of death of her sompassionate appointment before the nnexure. p-4. Coun'se! submits that died during service, have.been given e Public Works Department, but the L The' reiief ciaimed is for .a re compassionats appointment to the its'that ihe matfer will be examined as id for compassionate appointment, she This Court in the case of pmt Bhynbai Sahu Vs. Smt. Hamida. Siddiqui reported in 2002(1) GGU.J 257^ has hig'hlighted the probiems snt and directions have been issued. It [Trt^ ^RST^ \ + XI-HC-22 -SS, -^w\v\^ 'a^Wre, I^WHy >flW(l S()»ll<t> ^:^^!oc> ,. •t"g^ 200 w^i'qn ft-ii+. 3n§?i. ^^t ^lf^ tT (.'•• H/- ^ -^' ^" was held that the compassjonate is rnade with the object that after the dt .depenaerits shouid not be rendered| the petitioner should not b& harasse4 There should not bs any del4 jusiice.No useful purpose wouid b^ for compassioRate appointments p^ eariy as possib'e.. ' • Havinfl considered the factsl ma.teriai on record, it is directed thatj as eariy as possibie preferabiy vv-ith| date of production/receipi of a cop{ compassionate appojntment, she sht case she is npt entitled, then the copy be supplied to her free of cost a^ The petitlon is accoraingiy dl[ fiie afresh in case grievanee stiii rem^ Certified copy as per ruies . • Copy to State Counsel for corrlptiance. .'tiwict'fl-f TFRif 4 fe^r^N^R ^; SlfWI 31^1 |a benevolent :provision s,nd has been l^ath of the government empioyee, hls destitute. It was further'directed that (y iti such cases as the deiay defeats seryed in keeping such applications s^nding; They shouid be decided as land clrcumstances of the case .and the.case ofthe petitioner be decided i[n a period ofthree mQnthsfrom the k.of this order. If she is entitted for t>uld be given the appointment and in drder shouid specify {he reasons and sposed of at thls stage with iiberty to lins. ^ ' SdJ'.... ^^ [Tft^ ^fo^