Sundar Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2564 of 2019 Sundar Lal S/o Late Dev Lal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Thaggaon, Post Office Banjaridand, Tahsil And Police Station Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Department Home Affairs Ministry At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Secl Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Headquarter At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Director (Personnel) SECL Headquarter At Seepat Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief General Manager SECL Chirmiri Area, Chirmiri District Koriya Chhattisgrh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

5. Area Personnel Manger SECL Chirmiri Area, Chirmiri District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

6. Superintendent Of Police Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

7. Devraj S/o Mangla Compassionate Appointee Working In Bartunga Coaliery, SECL Chirmiri Area, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Rahul Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/04/2019

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order of appointment given to the respondent No.7 by the respondents No.2 to 5.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that, he is the sole legal heir of the deceased employee late Devlal and that there is no other legal heir other than the petitioner and yet the department have granted

-2compassionate appointment to the respondent No.7 on the basis of false and fabricated documents.

3. The contention of the petitioner further is that he has repeatedly made objections to the department in respect of the appointment of the respondent No.7, but till date no action has been taken by the department.

4. Given the limited grievance that the petitioner has raised and the fact that he has made repeated objections in this regard, let the respondents No.3&4 conduct a detailed enquiry in this regard and take an appropriate steps with due intimation to the petitioner in respect of the development that takes place. It is expected that the department would take a decision at the earliest preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder