High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1170/2017disposed off

Smt. Meena Gaggar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-03-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.1170 of 2017

1. Smt. Meena Gaggar Wd/o Late Shri Santosh Daggar, Aged About 28 Years R/o Aadarsh Nagar Kawardha Dist. Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Administration and Development Indravati Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director, Directorial Public Administration and Development, Indravati Bhavan New Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Kawardha Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Arjunda Distt. Balod (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Shri SP Kale, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 09/03/2017

1. The Husband of the petitioner while working under the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kawardha, died in harness on 19.08.2014. The petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment. However, the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kawardha, has regretted to provide her compassionate appointment on the ground of non availability of the vacancy. Subsequently, the respondent No.2, Director, Public Administration and Development, issued an order on 09.08.2016 recommending the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment at Nagar Panchayat, Arjunda, Distt. Balod, which falls under the respondent No.4.

2. Though the recommendation was made as early as on 09.08.2016 by the State, the record shows that the respondent No.4, Chief Executive Officer,

Nagar Panchayat, Arjunda, has refused to accept the said recommendation on the ground that the post on which the name of the petitioner has been recommended was a post to be filled up by direct recruitment and the process has already been initiated. Therefore, the recommendation of the State was turned down.

3. Be that as it may, let the matter be placed before the respondent No.2 ensuring that the claim of the petitioner be further processed and a decision be taken at the earliest. Let this exercise be done by the respondent No.2 afresh within a period of 90 days from today.

4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder