Smt. Archana Ransingh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.

( S ) No.

of 201 Smt. Archana Ransingh, Age 35 years, W/o Shri Sugam Rao Ransingh, D/o Late Prakash Kumar Karhade, R/o Behind Govardhan Haveli Temple, Gobara-Nayapara, Rajim, P.S.-Gobara-Nayapara, Post-Nayapara, Tahsil - Abhanpur District Raipur, Civil & Revenue District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, General Administrative Department, Naya Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Naya Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, District-Raipur (C.G.)

3. The Commissioner, Directorate, Public Education Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

4. District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

5. Block Education Officer, Abhanpur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri J.N. Nande, Advocate.

For Respondents : Smt. Astha Shukla, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board /01/2016

(1) Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that issue raised in this petition is concluded by this Court in W.P. (S) No.296/2014 (Smt. Sarojni Bhoi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) decided on 30.11.2014, in which this Court has directed as under:- "29. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, writ petition is allowed and consequently Clause 3(1)(c) of policy relating to compassionate appointment dated 10/06/2003 and Clause 5(c) of policy dated 14/06/2013 being violative and discriminatory to the extent of excluding married daughter for consideration from compassionate appointment are hereby declared void and inoperative and consequently the impugned order (Annexure-P/3) rejecting the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment is quashed.

The respondent/State is directed to reconsider the claim of petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground afresh in accordance with law keeping in view that her father died on 06/01/2011 and her application was rejected on 28/09/2011, preferably within a period of forty five days from the receipt of certified copy of order. No order as to cost(s)."

(2) Accepting the submissions made by the parties;

and in view of the aforesaid order 30.11.2015 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.296/2014, impugned order (Annexure-P/5) rejecting the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment is quashed. The respondents/State are directed to reconsider the claim of petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground afresh in accordance with law keeping in view that her father died on 18.08.2012 and her application was rejected on 31.05.2013 and particularly keeping in view the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.296/2014, preferably within a period of forty five days from the receipt of certified copy of order. No order as to cost(s).

(3) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-