C . <T.\OC^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUP^: CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. ^S^ 2004 Petitioner .^. •-^sA t ^^ -^ ^:^. 5^-^s s'^&- ^^€^G' •^^y^" Respondents Wl Versus ^- 12. ^ ' [r^y^ ^ Prathmesh Kumar Bangaliya S/o late Shri Virendra Kumar Bangaliya, Aged about 24 years, R/o C/o Arun Bangaliya, Nagar Nigam Colony, Near Raipur Naka, Ring Road, BUaspur-(C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through the secretary Home Departraent D.K.S Bhawan Raipur, Dist: Raipur-fC.G.) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Through its Chairman, C.S.E.B. Danganiya Raipur Dist: Raipur- (C.G.) The Additional Secretary, C.S.E.B. Danganiya Raipur Dist: Raipur- (C.G.) The Chief Enaneer, Kalyan Adhikari Re^on Bilaspur Dist: Bilaspur -(C.G.). The Executive En^neer, Champa, Dist: Janjgir (C.G.) Union of India, ^ Throu^i the Chief Secretary ^9\ Department of Personal & ^) . Training & Public Grievances, pi^-^V Shastri Marg, New Delhi T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDL^ ..^ '^\ ^y ^USM^ M^".. l^1.0° l^ •^ j)L- tA^ ^,T ^ ^»f ^^ 7. $^be^f%»p^ i?lSclt.s^eLsecr^y ^?:&Bm.^paa?te@"^7' Bhav'an, Bhopal ,(»»'?,)' e^w^m ^ w' XI-HC-22 3^ ^iqicrt^, ^9Tn<lll<o, [®ldiy^< ^TM5|Ct» *II*ICTI ff»+ll<h ( * f 'A^" 200 f^^' 3T^?T^T f^rw^n^T \<^ ^T^C Sb^l<:b«T^cT 3TI^?T ?^<TRK ^T$?cT 20D4 7-7-2006 Mr. Deepak Jain, counsel for Mr.A.S. Kachhawaha, Govt. Mr. A.S. Gaharwar with respondents No.2 to5- Mr. S.K. Beriwai, Centrai Gc No.S. Mr. Vivek Verma, counsel foi| Heard. By this wrlt petition under the petitioner has prayed for a dir case of the petitioner for comi quashlng the order dated 25-6-20) has been informed that he is not ground. The case of the petitione^ Bangaiiya, who was working as A{ hamess on 26-9-1999. The petitj he made application dated 12-1 q appointment. However, vide 3), he has been Informed thaf appointment. The petitioner ma^ heard on behalfofthe respondent^. Reply has been filed on mentioned that the petitioner's ca^ dated 28-2-2004, whereby it has empioyees who died cn or after Gbi<<f<n41ri ^i*4^iT^teT^'<f^^i< ^3:rf^1T3TI^?T |the petitioner. lAdvocate for the State/respondent No.1. Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, counsei for ^vt. Counsel for Union of Jndia/respondent respondentNo.7. 4rticle 226/227 of the Constitution of india, r|ection to the respondents to consider the l^asslonate appointment and prayed for (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner iligible for appointment on compassionate js that his father Late Virendra Kumar ssistant Grade-ii at Naiia-Champa, died in ioner is qualified upto C!ass-X!i, therefore, -1999 (Annexure P-2) for compassionate comtnunication dated 25-6-2004 (Annexure P- he is not eligible for compassionate le representation, but nothing has been behaif of CSEB in which it has been >e cannot be considered as per the policy >een decided that the dependants of those 15-11-2000 -are entitled for compassionate (^y^) '^ XI-HC-22 3^ "4i<ii<n-4, yT{1^^<o, fsjdl^^< i^l MSI<t» ^IH^TT^WT^ ";""""""'"' ^[ 200 f^re^' ^n^r^T RlTlicb3TT^T ^rf^^cf 3TT^?T^<iTCK^cf •-L' chi1Mf<n<nri ^i+^nT^'fe^i'^^K ^^T1^T3TT^T appojntment. Under the MP. Chhattisgarh was carved out wit|i MPEB was blfurcated according Chhatilsgarh w.e.f. 15-11-2000. Sectlon 58 of the M.P. Reorganls^ and empioyees of undh/lded Boar^l CSE3. Vide order dated Stn Janu^r Power, jssued an order in whlch i| of both the States agreed in a rn^ 20th March, that the divlsionl adopted for division of employees mentioned that tne matter has provlslonal order 12 April,| empioyees it has been decided the lines followsd by DOPT for ailsj GovetTi-ment of erstwhile Madhya persons.io the successor Eiectri4i posts reiatabie to territorial jurisdi^t to respective States and simiJarlyl territoriaj cadres belng allocated remaining and eniployees Therefore, dlstribution of eifr territorial jurisdlction of CSEB an| petitioner's father was worklng at ^ In harness on 26-9-1999, when compassionate appointment was compasslonate appointrnent 'on 1| be^n fir|aiiy jpeorganlsation Act, 2000, the State. of effect from 1-11-2000 and thereaftsr, ^o the terrltories of the -States of M.P. & ^|s per the proyislons of sub-section (4) of ifetlon Act, 2000, the assets and iiabiiitles ^ are to be dlstributed among MPEB and |sy, 2004, Government of India, Mlnlstiy of has mentioned that representatives ^eting taken by the Secretary (Power) on |of empioyees wouid be In line with poilcy t)f JVIP Government. !n para 2, it has be-en considered and in partiai modification of |2001, so far as reiating to the division of to dlvide the and eniployees cn |?catlon of post and employees of the )radesh for rnaking aiiocation of posts and ity Board of MPEB on the prlncipie that ^tion of a successor State may be aiiotted empioyees beionging to such sub to concerned State and only dlvlding the [t'^een the two States. npioyees has rnade on the of NPEB. !t is admitted posjtlon that the jaiia-Champa up to the date when he died pollcy of 30 January, 1997 regarding |n existence and the petitioner applled for 2-10-1999. . As the petitioner's father was the (^^fe^) XI-HC-22 3T1^T^T Rl^Jch^TT^T ^TT^^cT Soma 3^ ^NKrt^, ^Tft^^l^, fa<rtl<M^< .^^:.^s^ t<IMdl$t»MI<h>'<<<><"""""<<><^T 200 ^^....................... 3T7^T S^cfTW ^f?cf ^ worklng under the territory of CSI consideration of compassionate a CM^I<i41Ti ^i+KnTifte^t^^K ^3:rf^T3T1^T ^B, therefore, the petitioner ss entitied for )pointment in accordance with the policy dated 30th January, 1997. J am fc|rtified in my view for the above finding for the reason that even the State of CFhhattisgarh, which came into exjstence on 1-11-2000, has taken a decision p;hat dependants of those employess who dled on or after 1-11-1997 and |were working in the existing temtor^ of Chhattisgarh, are entitied for comp^ssionate appointment. Accordlngiy, the petition is to consider the case of the petilioner for compassionate appointment, of course jf he is ejiglbie to be consj ^th 30mJanuary,1997. Parties are entitled for certifi piiowed and respondent CSEB is directed ^iered, in accordance with the poljcy dated pdcopyofthisorder. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^ft^^fe^T)