Smt. Vandana Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 851 of 2017 • Smt. Vandana Shukla W/o Late Arun Kumar Shukla, Aged About 39 Years R/o Nagdoune Colony, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil, Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) • Varun Kumar Shukla, S/o Late Arun Kumar Shukla, Aged About 10 Years Through Next Friend Mother Namely Smt. Vandana Shukla, Aged About 39 Years, W/o Late Arun Kumar Shukla, R/o Nagdoune Colony, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil, Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, P. S. Kewli, Tahsil, Civil & Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Inspector General Of Police, Raipur Range Raipur, Police Station Civil Lines, Tahsil, Civil & Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, Police Station Civil Lines, Tahsil, Civil & Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 20.02.2017 1.

The petitioners have filed this petition for issuance of direction to the respondents to provide compassionate appointment and release of family pension.

2.

So far as the question of compassionate appointment is concerned, in the instant case petitioner No.1 has been convicted for the death of the deceased employee and the petitioner No.2 is minor a aged about

10 years, therefore, the question of compassionate appointment does not arise. The same may be provided after the outcome of the criminal appeal which is pending before this Court. 3.

So far as question of family pension is concerned, let the petitioner approach respondent No.3 by making fresh representation and the respondent No.3 thereafter, should decide the claim for pension in case if the petitioners are entitled for the same under the provisions of service rules. In case respondent No.3 shall comes to the conclusion that she is entitled for pension, the same may be released to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. In case if under the rules they are not entitled then it should also be communicated to the petitioners.

4.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Chandra