\ siw^s Bencll CF\^^ INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •y.p. (S) NO. ier {an *-»« ,.</^ ^.-^ ^^-/- ^••%%- ./••'^^"- ^••y^ ^y.. '^•-" (^' Kesponclents versus 9 A Fi f-1 S/'o Late Hardayal Aged about 24 yeaj-s, R/' Qireil'iQT'. Post —Dli< •^t. v^-t-JLlAA y A 1-fa-ri- T'slisil Kumci — 1 )h.amtF*T1-fCL(Y. '".? State ofChhattisRarh. T'hrough - The Secretary General Administration Dep^irtnient, D.K.S BhRwan Raipur, Dist: Raipui*-(C,G.) 'l'i'ie Jai! yupenntenaent, Central JEUI, Ambikapur Sarguja, Dist : Sarguja- (C.G.) "The Jail Superintendent y For Chief Director & Inspector Geaeral ol Policf (Jail), Raipur-(C.Q.) The Superintendent Central Jail Raipur, Dist : Raipur-(C.G.), State of Madhya Pradesh T'hrough the Secretary Ueneral Acin'unistrative DeDartment, VaBabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Dlst : Bhopal-(M.P.j Uruon 01 mcua, Through the Chief Secr< Department of Personi Training & Grieirances, Shastri New Delhi -&U1JLCU. k» *<y .T; -S1; L ^) WRIT PETTTION UNDERARTICLE 226 7 227 CC'NSTfTUTION OF INDLA ' T XI-HC-22 tTPTfTI SiWcb Tsf -yi^id'4, ES'tTitf'is, (sidwy 3T(iT?T4?|ch —.!L>>.P...t^:<).!'%.Jfb& •~r-•••••'•*•'°•••'•"•••/•flq; 200 @ fq^% an^rqiT {^(R; 3(1^1 giTfRi^T 't ^- sn^rgRnwdf^r 30.8.2006 20DO bseb Shri Deepak Jain, Advocats fdf Shri Vinay Pandey, P.L. for resj Shri S.K. Beriwal, Central Sovi 1-fear'd. Jhe petitioner's case is that hi| as Jcil Suard (Pr-ahari), Up-Jail, [24.2.1997. The petitioner after at1|< |compassionate appointment on 9.9.; ]order dated 8.12.2005 (Annexure P-5C Perusal of order dated 8.121 ^ipplication of the petitioner has ^ieirs of the employees who died on |compassionate appointment, as per- B^ fseen revised and the Sovernment |3ied on or after 1.3.1.1997, their le9a|l [sompossioncte appointmsnt. In the pr^ (?n 24.2.1997 i.e. prjor to 1.11.1997, th^ fcovered under the Sovernment {;ompassionate appointnient. As such, ther'e is no merit in ti (and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.35^ jr the petitioner. ?ondent No.l to 5 on advance copy. Standing Counsel for respondent No.6. father Late Har'dayal 5in9h was working Jchdpurnagar, Jashpur and disd in harness on (aining the age of m<yor-ity applied fop I, but the same has been rejected vide qiRfepfFT WlRTf ff feiS <^R3n: ^srf^iTTan^r ori after hak [2005 (Annexure P-8) shows that the rejectsd on the ground that the legat 1.3.1.2000 are bein9 considered for wer-nment poiicy. Now the said date has ^ issued orders that the emplcyees who heirs are sntitled for consideration of '^sent case, fother of the petitioner died ^refore, the case of the petitianer is not policy regarding consideration for |e petition, same is iiabie to be dismissea 7S/06 also stand dismissed^ Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo € 'A' 'y'