; , IN THE HIGH COIJRT OF JCMC'ATURE AT BILASFUR WMTPETITIONNO. s11 OF 2002 PETITIONER : Sudhir Kumar Yadav S/o. Late Dhmv Ram Yadav, aged abovt 23 years, R/o Gandm Pandariya^ Dist Rdgnandga<m (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTO: r).^<<<^«?.,.' -^^y ...:rS^:"' ^' ^ (l>^tateofChhatdsgarii Tliroug^i: Seerdary, DepartmeirtRaipw. (C.G.) Forest OP ^W^/^ (2) Conservateir^offic^Durg, Circle Durg. (3) Divisi<mal Forest Qfficw, geaiwal Forest Division Khairagaifa. (4) Divisi<MiaI Forest Officer. produetforestAvisioin. Khauagaih. (5) CoUector, Rajnandgaon. ...^" ^^ o •^©v^ -•'•u^ ^ .^' w" (g) WMT PETITION U/A HIGH COimT QF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BIIASPUR 8INGLBBBNCH : HOM*BLB 8HRI 8ATI8H K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRITPBTITIONW0.511 OF 2002 Petitioner SudUbr Kuinar Yadav versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Prcsent : Smt. Indira Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi^ P&nel lawyer for the rcspoHdents/ State, ORAL ORDBR (4"»May, 2006) 1. The father of the petitioner namely Shri Dhruv Ram Yadav was eiaployed as Guard in the Forcst Departmient at P&ngaongarh Forest Rai^e Production Forest Division, Dlstrict Rajnandgaon. Shri Dhruv Rain Yadav died on 14.4,1999 m hamess. 2. The petitioner, being one ofthe dependent-legal heirs, filed aa application for compassionate appointnient on 20.10.1999. Learaed counsel for the respondents submits that the application was rejected on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner's father was not regiilar. He was appoiated on datty wages basis. 3. The Goveniment of Chhattisgarh, by its circular dated 2.2.2006, has directed all the departments to consider cases of aU the eUgible dependant-legal heir of the employees, who died m hamess between 1.11.1997 to 31.10.2000 for compassionate appointoaient. 5. Accordingly, the Govemment of Chhattisgarh is directed to consider the case of fhe petitioner as per its own circular dated 2.2.2006 and also in view ofthe oider dated 20.12.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1322/2002 and other coitaected iiiatters on its own nierit, in accordance with law, on such reprcsentation beiag filed by the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge