High Court Of ChhattisgarhREVP/122/2021disposed off

Sukanti Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2021-09-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 122 of 2021

1. Sukanti Sahu W/o Late Vijay Kumar Sahu Aged About 58 Years (Now 58 Years) , Village Civil Lines, Ward No. 7, Pathraguda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

2. Kiran Kumar Sahu S/o Late Vijay Kumar Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Civil Lines, Ward No. 7. Pathraguda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Forest Department Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Divisional Forest Officer General Forest Division, Kondagaon, Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

3. Conservator Of Forest Kanker Vrut Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

4. Collector Office Of Collector, Bastar, District Bastar, District Headquarters, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Shri Ravish Verma, Govt. Advocate S.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 10/09/2021 Heard.

1. This review petition has been filed by the applicants/petitioners seeking review/recall of order dated 21.7.2016 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.3054

-2of 2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that this Court had given the applicants/petitioners, opportunity to revive if the applicants are in a position to explain that some policy of compassionate appointment was existing at the time of death of the deceased-employee. Referring to many documents which have now been filed along with review petition, it is stated that there was policy in vogue even prior to the death of employee in the year 1990 and subsequent circular of 1994 permits reconsideration of earlier cases.

3. Be that as it may, the order of this Court only granted opportunity to the applicants/petitioners to revive the petition which should be understood as it was intended that the applicants/petitioners may file a fresh writ petition if they have documents in their favour. Now the applicants/petitioners have placed certain documents before this Court. It is open for the applicants to file fresh writ petition.

4. Review petition is accordingly disposed off. Sd/----/-/----- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen