-'^7 VIQNE <S© NOI^naZ£SN@^ ^HE s©L2Z/9BZ sa^oia^v ®@mj^iaiE^d 3,rm . .. ^?'?, ^ / A-'"" -^ .^r;i1^-^ sa;N3Gi©dsa« ^f&S^' ,^^y •(03) STtdse-rfQ ^Qfs^s-^yav TT®tl®a< 'jndseTTS' .loq.osTTGQ ©10; • (£>3) jndseTTS <»ST^ST®PUB TTStiaa ^.tndeena ^©fipAT suo-Fsses P^®^^^%f!|@ etp; •(03) -indT%i *6a!;pniia*g*^»@ ^eTB-r^uew '®UBOH so ^S^^QX&QS QV^ qfino3i(£ 'qsefis-Fi^etiqs 30 e^B-»g ai-B;^ •l: 0 N V ySEBlSSiXSd •(©3)-tnde&TTS ^OT^STQ pue TTStlss /^ndseTTS 'cJsdgS^qnqoTOtp 3e6®N-t©3tU»itg30 ^aepTsas 's^ea^E gg ^noqe p®6e 'ABp^L -ce^ uia^a ®^®^©/sAep®. semGa KqsT-so! ^ ^^... 6 (•©•©) aadgviia .EV a^i'isvsKmjE'^o a.afioo HSEH SHE NIT maKs.SQ. Z0©2 .SO f^Zf' •ON'd'M ^ •-> ^ ^v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 2283 of 2002 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Krishn Kumar Yadav State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, PL for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ^ONSTITUTION OF INDIA O RD E R (05.10.2010) Grievance ofthe petitioner is that on 8.3.1996 vide Annexure P-8 he was given compassionate appointment but on 27.3.1998 vide Annexure P-9 his services were terminated. According to the petitioner, this termination order is not in accordance with law and therefore direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner late Prem Lal Yadav was working as lower division clerk under the control of District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and he died in harness on 13.9.1984. After considering the applicationof the petitioner dated 26.7.1995 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner was given compassionate appointment on 8.3.1986 vide Annexure P-8. 3. Contention of Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of the petitioner was though compassionate but was regular appointment and therefore the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated in an abrupt manner without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submits that the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to give some support to the deceased family but by terminating the services of the petitioner, the petitioner and his family members are being literally thrown on the street and therefore the petitioner is again entitled for compassionate appointment. 4. Supporting the impugned order of termination it has been argued by Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, counsel for the State that the petitioner was appointed as a contingent employee and was given fixed salary of Rs. 1143 per month as per the rate fixed by the Collector. He submits that in the appointment order itself it was specifically mentioned that his services would be temporary and can be terminated even without giving him any notice. He further submits that after appointment the services of the petitioner were not found satisfactory and for most of the period he did not attend the duty and this fact is evident from Annexure R-1 filed along with the return. He submits that time and again the petitioner was given memo regarding his unauthorized absence but in stead of improving he continued to remain absent unauthorizedly from his duty for this purpose the State counsel has referred Annexure R-2, R-3 & R-4. He further submits that on 3.2.1998 vide Annexure R-5 the information was also sent to the leaned District Judge about the unauthorized absence of the petitioner. He submits that even otherwise also the petitioner is not entitled for re-appointment on compassionate ground because the mother of the petitioner i.e. the widow of the Government employee has been given all the retiral dues of late Prem Lal Yadav and she was also given the family pension. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In the petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on a post for which he is eligible. ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and \ proper may also be- passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. -3- 7 . From the petition it is very clear that there is no challenge by the petitioner to the termination order dated 27.3.1998 (Annexure P-9). Thus, 1 find no substance in the argument of the petitioner that termination order deserves to be quashed. However, from the return it is apparent that the petitioner was very casual while performing his duty and used to remain unauthorizedly absent from his duty and the details has already been given by the respondents as Annexure R-1. Time and again the petitioner was warned for remaining unauthorizedly absent from his duty but he did not improve and ultimately the authorities had left with no option but to pass the impugned order. 1 find no illegality with the order impugned and the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment for the second time especially when his father died in the year 1984. This apart, the petitioner was terminated on 27.3.1998 whereas the present petition has been filed on 30.09.2002 without explaining the inordinate delay in filing the same and on this ground also the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge • ^