← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/7586/2018disposed off

Smt. Shakuntala Gaikwad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-11-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7586 of 2018 Smt. Shakuntala Gaikwad W/o Domanlal Gaikwad, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Sirsida, Post Khamhariya, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492002

2. Assistant Inspector General (Administration) Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Superintendent Of Police, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri D. Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 19/11/2018 The claim raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for grant of appointment on compassionate basis.

2.

The claim has once been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was found to be a married lady, the only limited prayer which the petitioner makes is that subsequent to the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarojini Bhoi Vs. State of CG and others decided on 30.11.2015 in WPS No. 296 of 2014, the State Govt. has amended the policy for compassionate appointment and decided to consider the claim of a married daughter to be

dependent on the deceased employee. Subsequent to the judgment passed and the policy being amended, the petitioner has made a fresh representation on 21.07.2017 Annexure P-6 which till date has not been decided by the Authorities.

3.

State counsel submits that the authorities in the given facts may be directed to decide the same.

4.

Given the said facts and the contentions put forth on either side, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2, if he is not the competent authority, let the competent authority take a decision on the fresh representation made by the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not made any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the same purely in accordance with the rules, regulations and scheme governing the field. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Khatai