Sudhir Kumar Dixit v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.1778 of 2019 Sudhir Kumar Dixit, S/o Late Shri Ram Kumar Dixiti, aged about 27 years, R/o Vinoba Nagar, Gali No.R/2, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Sports and Youth Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Commissioner, Sports and Youth Welfare Department, Khel Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

4. Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner:

Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondents/State: - Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 06/12/2021

1. The petitioner's father died in harness when the petitioner was minor and therefore he could not make application for compassionate appointment which he made on 7-1-2012 and which was rejected on 17-7-2012 against which the petitioner filed W.P.(S)No.3967/2012 before this Court which was ultimately withdrawn on 5-9-2013 on the pretext of filing representation in accordance with the new policy of compassionate appointment issued by the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner filed representation in the month of September, 2013 and thereafter on 15-9-2018.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's representations have not been considered and decided till now.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has already been rejected on 17-7-2012 and the writ petition against that order has been withdrawn by the petitioner himself, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any direction.

4. Be that as it may, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner now pending before him in accordance with law and the applicable rules & regulations within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

5.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma