Umadevi Rajwade v. The Chairman Cum Managing Director

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2605 of 2016 • Umadevi Rajwade Wd/o Harinarayan, Rajwade, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village & Post Bishunpur, Police Staiton Charcha Colliery, District Korea Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chairman Cum Managing Director South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

2. The Sub Area Manager, Charcha West P.O. Charcha Collier, Police Station Charcha Colliery, Distict Korea Chhattisgarh

3. General Manager, Mining, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Charcha R.O.P. Charcha, District Korea Chhattisgarh

4. The Area Personnel Manager, Charcha, West P.O. Charcha Collier Police Staiton Charcha Colliery District Korea Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondents-SECL :

Mr. M.L. Saket, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 11-07-2016 1) The petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved by negligence on the part of the respondents in not granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

2) It is submitted that husband of the petitioner died on 04.06.2012 and the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment under the existing scheme of Social Security on 08.07.2013. As the application has not been decided till date, this petition has been filed. 3) On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents was granted time to seek instructions in the matter as to why claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been decided even after almost three years. Today, Shri M.L. Saket, counsel appearing

under the instruction of Shri Vivek Chopda, counsel for respondentsSECL, submits that respondents shall consider and decide petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment at the earliest in accordance with the policy prevalent and norms of the Company. 4) In view of the above submission, I am not inclined to keep the petition pending at this stage. Let the petitioner's application which is pending since 2013 be decided within a period of 60 days by respondent No.3. The direction for consideration within a limited period is being issued because application for compassionate appointment is pending since last three years, despite an effective provision for granting compassionate appointment. Representation must be decided and if petitioner is found eligible, she be offered compassionate appointment. In case grievance is not redressed, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive the petition.

5) The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) JUDGE chandra