Gulshan Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5324 of 2017 • Gulshan Pandey S/o Late Niranjan Pandey Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Sukurpal, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
3. District Education Officer, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner :
Mr. Badal Bhardwaj, Advocate For State :
Mr. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Oral Order 10/10/2017 Heard on admission.
1.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for direction to respondent authorities to consider his case for grant of compassionate appointment.
2.
According to the avernments in the petition, father of the petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacer, died on 07-09-1997. The petitioner attained majority in the year 2017 and then submitted application for grant of compassionate appointment on 05-04-2017.
3.
The petitioner has not placed on the record the policy of
compassionate appointment which was in force at the time of death of employee to submit that irrespective of the date of death, the minor member of the family would be entitled to compassionate appointment upon attaining majority.
4.
The policy dated 30-04-2001 is not applicable. 5.
The object and purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the dependent family and it is not an alternative source of employment as such. Claim of compassionate appointment 20 years after death of the father can not be accepted in the aforesaid circumstances particularly that there is no policy to that effect. The petition is therefore bereft of merits and dismissed in limine. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit